Sapp v. The Vartan Group

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 14 of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab, DISMISSING complaint 1 , directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case, & noting any appeal from this order deemed frivolous & not taken in good faith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/26/17. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAMONT SAPP,
Plaintiff
v.
THE VARTAN GROUP, a/k/a
VARTAN ENTERPRISES,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-161
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc.
14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, issued following comprehensive
review of the complaint (Doc. 1) filed by pro se plaintiff Shamont Sapp (“Sapp”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), wherein Judge Schwab recommends that
the court dismiss Sapp’s complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may
be granted, and further recommends that the court close the case without leave to
amend in light of Judge Schwab’s prior order (Doc. 11) dated February 21, 2017,
advising Sapp of the manifold deficiencies in the complaint (Doc. 1) and granting
leave to file an amended pleading, and the court acknowledging, as Judge Schwab
does, that the court’s February 21, 2017 order (Doc. 11) was returned undeliverable,
but observing that pro se litigants such as Sapp maintain an obligation to keep the
court apprised of their current address, see LOCAL RULE OF COURT 83.18, and that
Sapp’s failure to do so evinces at minimum a failure to prosecute this action, see
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b), and at most an intent to abandon same, and it appearing that

Sapp has not objected 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 t
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 being in full agreement with Judge Schwab’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. 14) of Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED.

2.

Sapp’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4.

Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in
good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

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