Brown v. Krokos et al

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - granting 32 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 7/1/15. (pw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELIJAH BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER KROKOS, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

1:13-cv-1248
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Susan E. Schwab

ORDER
July 1, 2015
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
41) of United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, recommending that the
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be
dismissed because they are barred by collateral estoppel, and noting that Plaintiff
has not filed objections and that there is no clear error on the record,1 see Nara v.

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
1

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”) and the Court finding Judge Schwab’s
analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 41) of Magistrate Judge
Schwab is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32) is GRANTED.

3.

This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

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