Rose v. York County et al
Filing
15
ORDER 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.14) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. 13) is DENIED 3. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.(eo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JIMI ROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
YORK COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1:13-cv-2056
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson
ORDER
October 18, 2013
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 14), recommending
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc
(Doc. 13) be denied and the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and,
after an independent review of the record, it appearing that Plaintiff’s requests for
relief are barred by the Younger doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and
noting that Plaintiff has not filed objections and that there is no clear error on the
record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that
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
1
“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 Carlson’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully
supported by the record IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.
14) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint Nunc Pro
Tunc (Doc. 13) is DENIED
3.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4.
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
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.
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?