Blackwell v. Middletown Police Department et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Carlson 37 , & GRANTING in part & DENYING in part defts' motion to dismiss 31 - a. MTD GRANTED w/ re: all claims set forth in Cts II-V & DISMISSING said claims & b. w/ re: pltf's 4th Amend claims set forth in Ct I motion GRANTED as to Sgt. Hiester & DENIED as to Officers Fure & Cront. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 7/11/13. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM BLACKWELL,
Plaintiff
v.
MIDDLETOWN BOROUGH POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al..,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-825
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 37),
recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
(Doc. 31) be granted in part and denied in part, and, following an independent review of
the record, and noting that Plaintiff filed objections1 to the report (Doc. 39) on June 28,
2013, and the court finding Magistrate Judge Carlson’s analysis to be thorough and wellreasoned, and the court finding the objections to be without merit and squarely
addressed by Magistrate Judge Carlson’s report (Doc. 37), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 37) are
ADOPTED.

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (Doc. 31) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
(a)

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with respect to all claims set
forth in Counts II - V and these claims are DISMISSED.

(b)

With respect to plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claims set forth in
Count I, the motion is GRANTED as to Sergeant Hiester and
DENIED as to Officers Fure and Crone.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

2