Dickerson v. PrimeCare Medical Inc. et al
Filing
5
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Carlson 4 , granting pltf leave to proceed IFP for purpose of filing this lawsuit only, & DISMISSING pltf's complaint 1 w/out prejudice to pltf endeavoring to correct defects cited in the R&R by filing amended complaint w/in 20 days of date of this order - if pltf fails to amed complaint w/in 20 days his claim shall be deemed abandoned & Clrk of Ct shall be directed to close the file. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/21/11. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GEORGE DICKERSON,
Plaintiff
v.
PRIME CARE MEDICAL, INC.,
DR. WILLIAM YOUNG, TANYA
SCHISLER, and LISA SMITH,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1785
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 4),
recommending that plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed, and, following an
independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the
face of the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that
1
When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to
review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a
matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some
level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the
failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss
of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d
676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the
“plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the
face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The
court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
accordance with this Third Circuit directive.
“failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may
result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”), it is hereby ORDERED
that:
1.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 4) are
ADOPTED.
2.
Plaintiff’s is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of
filing this lawsuit only.
3.
Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to the
plaintiff endeavoring to correct the defects cited in the Report and
Recommendation by filing an amended complaint within twenty (20) days of
the date of this Order. If plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within
twenty (20) days, his claim shall be deemed abandoned and the Clerk of
Court shall be directed to close the file.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?