LECHTHALER v. HOLLYWOOD CASINO AT PENN NATIONAL RACE COURSE

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of Magistrate Judge Saporito 43 , GRANTING Mountainview's motion for jdgmt on the pleadings 18 with respect to Lechthaler's ADA & PHRA claims, DISMISSING Count I of pltf's complaint 1 , Ex A, directing that matter be REMANDED to CCP of Dauphin County, PA, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/2/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RICHARD LECHTHALER,

:
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
MOUNTAINVIEW THOROUGHBRED :
RACING ASSOCIATION, d/b/a
:
HOLLYWOOD CASINO AT PENN
:
NATIONAL RACE COURSE,
:
:
Defendant
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-291
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2015, upon consideration of the
report (Doc. 43) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the
court grant the motion (Doc. 18) for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant
Mountainview Thoroughbred Racing Association, d/b/a Hollywood Casino at Penn
National Race Course (“Mountainview”), and dismiss the disability discrimination
claims of plaintiff Richard Lechthaler (“Lechthaler”) pursuant to the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Pennsylvania Human
Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 PA. STAT. §§ 951-963, wherein Judge Saporito observes
that injunctive relief is the only remedy provided by the ADA, and opines that
Lechthaler’s ADA claim, seeking only monetary damages, must be dismissed, and
further observes that Lechthaler concedes his failure to exhaust administrative
remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with either the Pennsylvania Human
Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (see
Doc. 43 at 7-12), and, following an independent review of the record, the court

being in agreement with Judge Saporito that Lechthaler’s ADA and PHRA claims
must be dismissed, and the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Lechthaler’s remaining state law negligence claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3);
see also Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2005), and specifically noting that
trial dates and preparation in this matter are suspended pending resolution of the
instant motion, and that no judicial resources have yet been expended with regard
to the parties’ pending pretrial motions, and thus concluding that considerations of
“judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants” favor resolution of the
remaining state law claim in state court, see Kach, 589 F.3d at 650 (quoting New
Rock Asset Partners v. Preferred Equity Advancements, Inc., 101 F.3d 1492, 1507
n.11 (3d Cir. 1996)),1 and it appearing that Lechthaler does not object to the report,

1

The court acknowledges Judge Saporito’s recommendation that the court
retain supplemental jurisdiction over Lechthaler’s remaining state law claim. That
recommendation was based in large part on then-impending pretrial deadlines and
a trial date which have since been suspended.
2

and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,2 see Nara v. Frank, 488
F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 43) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2.

Mountainview’s motion (Doc. 18) for judgment on the pleadings is
GRANTED with respect to Lechthaler’s ADA and PHRA claims.

3.

Count I of plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1, Ex. A) is DISMISSED.

4.

This matter shall be REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

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

2

When parties fail to timely object 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. See 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 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 reviews the Magistrate Judge’s report in accordance with this Third Circuit
directive.