Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al

Filing 61

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - 1. The report (Doc. 59 ) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED. 2. Defendants' motions (Docs. 40, 47) to dismiss are GRANTED. 3. Smiths Section 1983 false imprisonment claim is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the favorable-termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). 4. The remainder of Smiths amended complaint is DISMISSED.5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case. Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 2/24/2020. (ktt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES E. SMITH,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18-CV-1241
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 2020, upon consideration of the
report (Doc. 59) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that
the court grant defendants’ motions (Docs. 40, 47) to dismiss pro se plaintiff Charles
E. Smith’s amended complaint (Doc. 22) without further leave to amend, and it
appearing that Smith 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 full agreement with Judge

Saporito’s recommendation that this matter be dismissed without further leave to
amend, 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.

Defendants’ motions (Docs. 40, 47) to dismiss are GRANTED.

3.

Smith’s Section 1983 false imprisonment claim is DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to the favorable-termination rule of
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

4.

The remainder of Smith’s amended complaint is DISMISSED.

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.

6.

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