Eggleston v. Bickell et al

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of the magistrate judge 77 in its entirety, GRANTING defts' MSJ 72 in its entirety, entering judgment in favor of defts & DISMISSING pltf's complaint 1 , & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/24/14. (ki)

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

PRINCE EGGLESTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBIN LEWIS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

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

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2014, upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 77), recommending
the court grant the defendants’ motion (Doc. 72) for summary judgment and dismiss the
pro se plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41, see FED . R. CIV . P. 41(b) (permitting court to dismiss lawsuit if “the
plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”), failure to
oppose the motion, see LOCAL RULE OF COURT 7.6 (“Any party who fails [to timely file a
brief in opposition] shall be deemed not to oppose such motion.”), and also on the merits,
and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with
the magistrate judge that the pro se plaintiff’s claims against his jailers are subject to
dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, a result compelled by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and it further appearing that plaintiff has

failed to object to the report,1 and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,2
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

Objections to the report were due by February 18, 2014, and none have been
filed to date. On January 31, 2014, plaintiff filed a letter (Doc. 78) indicating that he
is unfamiliar with the legal process and does not know how to prepare or file a brief
in opposition to defendants’ summary judgment motion. (Id.). However, a party
cannot evade litigation responsibilities simply by citing the fact that he is a pro se
litigant; procedural rules apply with equal force to all parties, whether counseled or
not. See, e.g., Sanders v. Beard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72657, *15 (M.D. Pa. July 20,
2010) (“While parties acting pro se are given leeway in certain requirements, they
are not excused from complying with court orders and the local rules of court.”).
Plaintiffs’ pro se status excuses neither his failure to exhaust his administrative
remedies nor his failure to oppose defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
2

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.

1.

The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 77) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

The defendants’ motion (Doc. 72) for summary judgment is GRANTED in
its entirety.

3.

Judgment is ENTERED in favor of the defendants and plaintiff’s complaint
(Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania