Victor v. Wetzel et al

Filing 112

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson; ; denying 99 Motion ; adopting 102 Report and Recommendations. SEE ORDER FOR ALL INFO; Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 1/7/22. (ep)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-00425-MEM-MCC Document 112 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM VICTOR, Plaintiff : JOHN WETZEL, et al., Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-425 : v. : (MANNION, D.J.) (CARLSON, M.J.) : : ORDER Presently before the court is the report and recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, (Doc. 102), which recommends that the court deny the plaintiff William Victor’s motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. 99). Neither party has filed objections. Even where no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “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 Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or Case 1:20-cv-00425-MEM-MCC Document 112 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 3 in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. Local Rule 72.31. In his Report, Judge Carlson notes that, after having his previous motions for preliminary injunctions denied, Victor filed one more motion that again seeks injunctive relief against non-parties to the above-captioned case, based upon allegations that are not legally, logically, temporally, or topically related to the claims in this lawsuit. Judge Carlson further observes that Victor’s motion does not comply with the “general rule that a court may not enter an injunction against a person who has not been made a party to the case before it.” See Additive Controls & Measurements Sys. Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc., 96 F.3d 1390, 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citing Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107, 117 (1897)). For these reasons, Judge Carlson once again recommends this court deny Victor’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court has conducted a thorough review of the Report, the pleadings, and the other filings of record, as well as the applicable law in this case, and the court agrees with Judge Carlson’s sound reasoning which led him to his recommendation. Accordingly, the court will adopt the Report in its entirety as the decision of this court. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: -2- Case 1:20-cv-00425-MEM-MCC Document 112 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 3 (1) The Report of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 102), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY; (2) Victor’s motion for injunctive relief, (Doc. 99), is DENIED; (3) The matter is REMANDED to Judge Carlson for further proceedings. s/ Malachy E. Mannion MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge DATE: January 7, 2022 20-425-05 -3-

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?