Lopez v. Springettsbury Township et al

Filing 138

ORDER 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 89) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as follows: 2. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 53) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:a. All claims against Defendan t Carroll Township are DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this defendant from the docket. b. All claims against Defendant Martin are DISMISSED, with the exception of the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim. c. The Motion to Deem the Motion to Dismiss as Unopposed (Doc. 88) is DENIED. 3. This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for all further pre-trial management. (eo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LABRE LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPRINGETTSBURY
TOWNSHIP, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

1:16-cv-1977

Hon. John E. Jones III

Hon. Martin C. Carlson

ORDER
May 2, 2017
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
89) of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommending that the
Motion to Dismiss of Defendants Carroll Township and Ben Martin (Doc. 53) be
granted in part and denied in part , and noting that neither party has filed
objections1 to the R&R and that there is and that there is no clear error on the

1

When parties fail to file timely objections 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. 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
1

record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that
“failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding
may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”) and the Court
finding Judge Carlson’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully
supported by the record IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 89) of Magistrate Judge
Carlson is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED in part as follows:

2.

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 53) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part as follows:
a.

All claims against Defendant Carroll Township are
DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE this
defendant from the docket.

b.

All claims against Defendant Martin are DISMISSED, with
the exception of the Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth
Amendment excessive force claim.

c.

The Motion to Deem the Motion to Dismiss as Unopposed
(Doc. 88) is DENIED.2

the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The Court has reviewed
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit
directive.
2
We note that the Plaintiff filed objections to this R&R (Doc. 114) disputing that the motions to
dismiss were unopposed. We note that Plaintiff does oppose the various motions to dismiss that
are or were pending in this case, thus we shall deny the Motion to Deem the Motion to Dismiss
2

3.

This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for all
further pre-trial management.

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

as Unopposed. Further, we note that the Magistrate Judge engaged in a full merits analysis of
the Motion to Dismiss at issue in this R&R.
3