Brown v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al

Filing 48

ORDER & JUDGMENT adopting report 47 of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick, construing pltf's corrs 46 as motion for voluntary dismissal of remaining claim against Harmon & granted as so construed, DISMISSING pltf's complaint w/ re: deft Harmo n, JUDGMENT ENTERED in favor of all other defts & against pltf as set forth in ct's order 43 dated 2/27/17, & directing Clrk of Ct to close case. (See order & jdgmt for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/31/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAWN L. BROWN,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-201
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER & JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this 31st day of May, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc.
47) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending the court dismiss the
above-captioned matter against the sole remaining defendant, Michael Harmon
(“Harmon”), upon plaintiff’s notice (Doc. 46) of her intent to withdraw all claims
thereagainst, and the court having previously granted summary judgment in favor
of all other defendants and deferred entry of judgment in their favor pending
disposition of then-extant claims against Harmon, (see Doc. 43), and it appearing
that no party objects to Judge Mehalchick’s instant 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 independent review of the record, the court in full 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:
1.

The report (Doc. 47) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s correspondence (Doc. 46) requesting withdrawal of her
remaining claim against defendant Harmon is CONSTRUED as a
motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2) and is GRANTED as so construed.

3.

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with respect to defendant
Harmon.

4.

Judgment is ENTERED in favor of all other defendants and against
plaintiff as set forth in the court’s order (Doc. 43) dated February 27,
2017.

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania