Golf Cart Services, Inc. v. Kabro Associates, LLC

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Schwab 26 and DENYING defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint 4 & motion to strike 16 . ( 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

GOLF CART SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
KABRO ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-2316
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (Doc. 26),
recommending that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 4) and motion to strike (Doc. 16)
be denied, 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 Schwab (Doc. 26) are
ADOPTED.

2.

Defendant’s motion (Doc. 4) to dismiss the complaint and motion (Doc. 16)
to strike are DENIED.

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

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.
2