Gejachte v. Hamm et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM (eo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY VAN DE GEJACHTE,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAULA MCGOWAN and TARA
HAMM,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

1:12-cv-620

Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson

MEMORANDUM
June 26, 2012
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate
Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 14) filed on June 4, 2012 that recommends we grant
the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) and Plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed without further leave to amend. Objections to the R&R were due by
June 21, 2012, and to date none have been filed. Accordingly, this matter is ripe
for our review. For the reasons that follow, we shall adopt the R&R in its entirety,
dismiss the complaint without further leave to amend and close the case.

1

I.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report
before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the
Third Circuit, however, “the better practice is 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). “[T]he 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
“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); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D.
Pa. 1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court’s
examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.
II.

DISCUSSION
On April 1, 2012, Plaintiff Jeffrey Van de Gejachte (“Plaintiff”) commenced

this action by filing a pro se complaint alleging that, while a prisoner at the
Schuylkill County Prison, he was troubled by an ingrown and infected toenail.
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Dr. Paula McGowan, “the provider in charge of
2

[his] well-being,” had not followed up on his podiatric complaint. Plaintiff alleged
that the failure to treat this ingrown toenail presented issues of a constitutional
dimension warranting both compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiff’s
complaint also names Defendant Tara Hamm, a prison nurse, however, aside from
listing her in the caption, the pleading recites absolutely no factual averments
related to her conduct.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, following the filing of this case, Plaintiff
has taken no steps whatsoever in furtherance of litigating the matter. He has failed
to respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, even after being warned by the
Magistrate Judge that failure to file a brief would result in the Motion being
deemed unopposed. He has further failed to file objections to the R&R, which
recommends dismissal of the action based on his failure to litigate pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) as well as due to the complaint’s failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. We agree entirely with the learned Magistrate
Judge’s analysis as to both grounds for dismissal.
As we have already mentioned, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to this
R&R nor has he made any attempt to litigate this case, despite being given
numerous opportunities to do so. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that
led the Magistrate Judge to the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in
3

its entirety. With a mind towards conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash
the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to
this document, as it accurately reflects our consideration and resolution of the case
sub judice. An appropriate Order shall issue.

4