Eggleston v. Bickell et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Carlson 14 , DISMISSING all claims in ptnr's amended complaint 11 except those re: his disciplinary retaliation claim, directing Clrk of Ct to provide service copies of amended com plaint to USM for svc on C. Mithcell, K. Stevens & J. Booher, STRIKING request for amended complaint 15 from record as untimely & moot, & REMANDING case to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/14/12. (ki)

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

PRINCE EGGLESTON,
Plaintiff
v.
ROBIN LEWIS, CHARLES MITCHELL,
K. STEVENS and JAMES BOOHER,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1220
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 14),
recommending that all claims in petitioner Prince Eggleston’s amended complaint
(Doc. 11), be dismissed with prejudice, except those related to his disciplinary retaliation
claim, 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 “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. 14) are
ADOPTED.

2.

All claims in petitioner’s amended complaint (Doc. 11), except those related
to his disciplinary retaliation claim, are DISMISSED with prejudice.

3.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide service copies of the amended
complaint (Doc. 11) to the United States Marshal for service on Charles
Mithcell, K. Stevens and James Booher.

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.

4.

The request for an amended complaint (Doc. 15) is STRICKEN from the
record as untimely and moot.

5.

The above-captioned case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for
further proceedings.

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