Brown v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 42 of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick, GRANTING MSJ 29 by defts Hepner, Hoerner, Meintel & PA DOC, DEFERRING entry of jdgmt pending final resolution of litigation & REMANDING matter to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for futher pretrial proceedings re: remaining deft. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/27/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAWN L. BROWN,
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-201
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2017, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 42) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that the court
grant the motion (Doc. 29) for summary judgment filed by defendants Jonathan
Hepner, Brian Hoerner, James Meintel, and the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections, wherein the magistrate judge opines that plaintiff Dawn L. Brown
(“Brown”) has failed to adduce evidence to survive Rule 56 scrutiny with respect to
her claim for unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2000e-17, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 PA. STAT.
& CONS. STAT. ANN. §§ 951-963, and specifically concludes that a reasonable juror
could not find, on the record sub judice, that defendants’ non-retaliatory reasons for
taking adverse employment action against Brown were mere pretext for unlawful
retaliation, and it appearing that Brown did not object to the report, see FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a
magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the
district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of
good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to dispositive legal
issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm’r
of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v.
Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to “satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the
court in agreement with Judge Mehalchick’s recommendation, and concluding that
there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The report (Doc. 42) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.
The motion (Doc. 29) for summary judgment by defendants Jonathan
Hepner, Brian Hoerner, James Meintel, and the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections is GRANTED.
Entry of judgment pursuant to paragraph 2 is DEFERRED pending
final resolution of this litigation.
This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for
further pretrial proceedings with respect to the remaining defendant
in this action.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?