Kinnard v. All Magistrates and Judges of the 51st Judicial District of Pennsylvania Courts
ORDER 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) of Magistrate JudgeSchwab is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. The petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case. (eo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GREGORY SHANE KINNARD, JR., :
ALL MAGISTRATES AND
JUDGES OF THE 51 JUDICIAL :
DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Susan E. Schwab
February 24, 2017
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
5) of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, recommending that
Petitioner’s petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus to preclude all
magistrates and judges of the 51st District Judicial District of Pennsylvania from
presiding over his state case in Adams County, Pennsylvania be dismissed because
this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue such a writ of prohibition or
mandamus to state court judges, and noting that Petitioner has not filed objections
to the R&R, and further noting that there is no clear error on the record,1 see Nara
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
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
Schwab’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) of Magistrate Judge
Schwab is ADOPTED in its entirety.
The petition for writ of prohibition and mandamus (Doc. 1) is
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.
s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
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 has reviewed
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit
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?