Kemper v. Steinhart et al

Filing 60

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 59 of Magistrate Judge Saporito, CONSTRUING pltf's filing 58 as motion for reconsideration & DENYING same, directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case & noting any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous & not taken in good faith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/24/19. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DOUGLAS KEMPER,
Plaintiff
v.
JOHN STEINHART, Corrections
Health Care Administrator, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1833
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2019, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 59) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that the recent
filing by pro se plaintiff Douglas Kemper (“Kemper”) be denied to the extent that
the filing is construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b), and further recommending that the above-captioned case
be dismissed with prejudice due to Kemper’s failure to file an amended complaint
within the time period set forth in the court’s March 4, 2019 order (Doc. 54), and it
appearing that Kemper 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 “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of the report,
E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson,
812 F.2d at 879), 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 being 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. 59) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2.

Kemper’s filing (Doc. 58) is CONSTRUED as a motion for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) and is DENIED as so
construed.

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