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.

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