Rice-Smith v. Misericordia Convalescent Home

Filing 24

ORDER - it is hereby ORDERED that The report (Doc. #22 ) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED. Defendants motion (Doc. #12 ) to dismiss Count I is GRANTED. Count I of plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. Plaintiffs amended complaint (Doc. 23) is accepted in accordance with paragraph 3 above. Defendant shall respond to plaintiffs amended complaint (Doc. 23) in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 1/6/2021. (mw)

Case 1:20-cv-01473-CCC Document 24 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DANA L. RICE-SMITH,
Plaintiff
v.
MISERICORDIA CONVALESCENT
HOME, d/b/a MISERICORDIA
NURSING & REHABILITATION
CENTER,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-1473
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2021, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court grant
defendant’s motion to dismiss Count I of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, (see id. at 8-11), but that the court grant
plaintiff leave to amend to cure the factual deficiencies identified in her pleading,
(see id. at 11), and it appearing that plaintiff has not objected to the report, see FED.
R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and in fact has filed an amended pleading as suggested by Judge
Carlson, (see Doc. 23), 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

Case 1:20-cv-01473-CCC Document 24 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 2

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 Carlson’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. 22) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2.

Defendant’s motion (Doc. 12) to dismiss Count I is GRANTED.

3.

Count I of plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and
with leave to amend.

4.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 23) is accepted in accordance with
paragraph 3 above.

5.

Defendant shall respond to plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 23) in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania