Ramsey v. Jackson

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of MJ Saporito. This matter is DISMISSED as frivolous. 5 The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 2/10/2020. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILIP E. RAMSEY,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
ROBERT M. JACKSON d/b/a RMJ :
VETERANS CTR.,
:
:
Defendant.
:

1:18-cv-1294

Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.

ORDER
February 10, 2020
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
5) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. recommending that
this matter be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)
inasmuch as the sole named defendant is not a state actor and as such Plaintiff
cannot maintain a federal civil rights action against it, nor has Plaintiff pled any
facts whatsoever that support a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
and the Court noting the Plaintiff has not filed objections 1 to the instant report, and

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
1

1

further noting that there is no clear error on the 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 Saporito’s analysis to be
thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) of Magistrate Judge
Saporito is ADOPTED as follows.

2.

This matter is DISMISSED as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

3.

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

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
directive.

2