Lark v. Dillman et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the R&R of MJ Blewitt. 2)Pltfs 8th Amendment claims raised in his amended complaint are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3)The Court declines to exercise supplemental jur isdiction over Pltf's remaining state-law claims. 4)The above captioned case is REMANDED to the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas with respect to Pltf's remaining claims. 5)Dfts 3 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. 6)The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 6 Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on March 25, 2013. (sc) (Main Document 7 replaced on 3/25/2013) (sc).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JIMMIE LEE LARK,
Plaintiff
v.
SHERIFF DILLMAN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:13-cv-335
(Chief Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

ORDER
Before the Court is a March 5, 2013 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Blewitt. (Doc. No. 6.) In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Blewitt
recommends that the Court dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal claims in his amended
complaint (Doc. No. 2-3), decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining statelaw claims, remand the case to the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas, and deny as moot
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 3). (Doc. No. 6 at 23.) No timely objections have
been filed.1
ACCORDINGLY, on this 25th day of March 2013, finding no error in Magistrate Judge
Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 6) of Magistrate
Judge Blewitt.

2.

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims raised in his amended complaint (Doc. 2-3)

1

The Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b),
provide that any party may file written objections to a magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations. In deciding whether to accept, reject, or modify a Report and
Recommendation, a court is to make a de novo determination of those portions to which
objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3.

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
remaining state-law claims.

4.

The above-captioned case is REMANDED to the Lebanon County Court of
Common Pleas with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claims.

5.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT.

6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.

s/ Yvette Kane
YVETTE KANE, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2