Vega v. Oakes et al
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. The Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case. 6 Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 4/6/17. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ADAM OAKES, Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole Agent, :
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
April 6, 2017
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
10) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that
the instant matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, inasmuch as Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise out of acts
that occurred in Jefferson County, Pennsylvania, which is situated in the Western
District, and noting that Plaintiff has not filed objections to the report and that there
is and that there is no clear error on the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187,
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
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 Saporito’s analysis to be
thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record IT IS HEREBY
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) of Magistrate Judge
Saporito is ADOPTED in its entirety.
The Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this matter to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
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
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?