Holness v. Wetzel et al

Filing 14

ORDER (eo) 1.The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED in its entirety.2. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3.The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PATRICK HOLNESS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : 1:13-cv-1491 Hon. John E. Jones III Hon. Martin C. Carlson ORDER October 17, 2013 AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 12), recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) be dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, and, after an independent review of the record, and noting that Plaintiff filed objections1 (Doc. 13) to the report on October 16, 2013, and the Court finding Judge Carlson’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully 1 Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinksi v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires ‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008). 1 supported by the record, and the Court further finding Plaintiff’s objections to be without merit2 and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson’s report IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case. s/ John E. Jones III John E. Jones III United States District Judge 2 Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R do nothing more that repeat his sweeping claims that he is a state prisoner in “long-term, supermax, solitary confinement” and that his constitutional rights were violated by prison officials. Similar to the narrative in his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff makes no targeted factual averments against any named Defendants within this submission, and merely demands that we “accept my penalogical complaint of authenticity and send all court-filing papers to the highest state-appointed officials.” (Doc. 13, p. 2). Because Plaintiff makes no availing argument against the Magistrate Judge’s clearly correct analysis and reasoning, we shall reject the his objections in toto. 2

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?