Santiago v. Lebanon County Prison PA et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Blewitt 13 , DISMISSING pltf's amended complaint 12 w/ prejudice, GRANTING pltf's motion to proceed IFP 2 solely for purposes of filing this action, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 7/10/13. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LEBANON COUNTY PRISON, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-587
AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 13),
recommending that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 12) be dismissed, 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
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.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt (Doc. 13) are
Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion (Doc. 2) is GRANTED solely for the
purposes of filing this action.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?