Chubbuck v. United States of America

Filing 36

ORDER: (1) Judge Saportios R&R 34 is ADOPTED.(2) Pltfs complaint 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice.(3) Leave to amend is DENIED as futile.(4) The Gvts mtn 17 for summary judgment is DENIED as moot.(5) The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 10/27/15. (ma)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BYRON SHANE CHUBBUCK,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant

:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:14-CV-01847
:
:
:
:

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of October, 2015, upon consideration1 of
Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Judge Saportio’s R&R (Doc. 34) is ADOPTED.2
(2) Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(3) Leave to amend is DENIED as futile.
(4) The Government’s motion (Doc. 17) for summary judgment is DENIED as
moot.
(5) The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

1

The Court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of an R&R, Sample v.
Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)), provided the
objections are both timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). The Court,
at minimum, should review uncontested portions of an R&R for clear error or manifest injustice.
See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F.Supp. 375, 376–77 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
2

In a recent filing, (Doc. 35), plaintiff complains about Judge Saporito’s footnote, (Doc. 34, at 1
n. 1), that has no bearing on the proposed recommendations or pertinent contents of the report;
therefore, to the extent plaintiff’s filing can be construed as an objection, it is overruled as
inconsequential.