Simpson v. Dauphin County Housing Authority et al
Filing
56
ORDER & JUDGMENT ADOPTING REPORT 55 of Magistrate Judge Saporito, GRANTING defts' MTD or in alt for summ jdgmt 38 , DISMISSING pltf's state law claims & 4th, 5th, 6th & 8th Amendment claims w/ prejudice, JUDGMENT ENTERED in favor of defts & against pltf w/ re: his 14th Amendment claim, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order & jdgmt for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/23/18. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHALMERS A. SIMPSON, JR.,
Plaintiff
v.
DAUPHIN COUNTY HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1747
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER & JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2018, upon consideration of the
report (Doc. 55) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that
the court grant defendants’ motion (Doc. 38) to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment, wherein Judge Saporito opines that pro se plaintiff Chalmers
A. Simpson, Jr. (“Simpson”) fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted
with respect to his claims under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments
and state law, (see Doc. 55 at 11-17), and further opines that no genuine disputes
of material fact remain as to Simpson’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due
process claim, and that Simpson has failed to establish a denial of due process, (id.
at 17-37), and it appearing that Simpson has not objected to the report, see FED. R.
CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure 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 Saporito’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. 55) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.
2.
Defendants’ motion (Doc. 38) to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment is GRANTED.
3.
Simpson’s state law claims and Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth
Amendment claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
4.
Judgment is ENTERED in favor of defendants and against Simpson
with respect to Simpson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim.
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
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?