Wright et al v. Thomas et al

Filing 24

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Report of Magistrate Judge Carlson 21 recommending that the ct deny pltfs' motion to remand 6 is ADOPTED in its entirety.; 2. Pltfs' motion to remand to CCP Huntingdon County DENIED.; 3. Report of M agistrate Judge Carlson 22 recommending that ct dismiss pltf's compalint is ADOPTED to the extent it recommends dismissal of pltfs' fed claims w/ prejudice - the ct declines to adopt the portion of report recommending dismissal w/out pre judice of pltfs' remaining state law claims.; 4. Defts' MTD 3 GRANTED to extent it seeks dismissal of pltfs' fed claims & DENIED in all other respects.; 5. Pltfs' fed due process & 42 USC Section 1983 claims DISMISSED w/ prejudicce.; 6. Matter REMANDED to Ct of Common Pleas of Huntingdon Co, PA, for resolution of remaining state law claims. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 12/4/13. (ki)

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

KAYLA WRIGHT and AMBER
CALLAHAN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NANETTE THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-0804
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2013, upon consideration of the reports
(Docs. 21-22) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court
deny plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 6) to remand the above-captioned action to state court for
failure to timely remove, and grant defendants’ motion (Doc. 3) to dismiss plaintiffs’
federal and state law claims, and, following an independent review of the record, it
appearing to the court that the magistrate judge appropriately concluded that the action
was timely removed to this court following plaintiffs’ amendment of their state court
pleading to include an unambiguous federal claim, (see Doc. 21), and the court agreeing
with the magistrate judge that plaintiffs’ federal claims lack substantive merit and are
barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity, (see Doc. 22), but the court observing that
the interest of judicial economy would be best served by remanding plaintiffs’ remaining
state law claims to the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania,
rather than dismissing the same without prejudice, and the court observing that neither
party has objected to the reports, 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 of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 21) recommending that the
court deny plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 6) to remand is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. 6) to remand the above-captioned matter to the
Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, is DENIED.

3.

The report of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 22) recommending that the
court dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. 1-3) is ADOPTED to the extent it
recommends dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims with prejudice. The court
declines to adopt the portion of the report recommending dismissal without
prejudice of plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

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.

Defendants’ motion (Doc. 3) to dismiss is granted to the extent it seeks
dismissal of plaintiffs’ federal claims and denied in all other respects.

5.

Plaintiffs’ federal due process and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims are DISMISSED
with prejudice.

6.

The above-captioned matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas
of Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania, for resolution of the remaining state
law claims.

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