Hartman v. Ambromaitis

Filing 5

ORDER - it is hereby ORDERED that Judge Saporitos report is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing and administrative fees. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 2/16/2021. (mw)

Download PDF
Case 1:20-cv-02283-CCC Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. RANDY COCKER, Defendant MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. STEVEN T. HEINLY, Defendant MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. BRIAN A. WICZKOWSKI, Defendant : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2279 : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2280 : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2281 (Judge Conner) (Judge Conner) (Judge Conner) Case 1:20-cv-02283-CCC Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 4 MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. ALEXANDER C. DAMINGER, Defendant MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. JOSEPH J. AMBROMAITIS, Defendant MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. BENNER, JR., Defendant MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. ZACHARY V. MEADOR, Defendant : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2282 : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2283 : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2285 : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2286 2 (Judge Conner) (Judge Conner) (Judge Conner) (Judge Conner) Case 1:20-cv-02283-CCC Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 4 MEL HARTMAN, Plaintiff v. CHRISTOPHER R. LAPPLER, Defendant : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-2287 (Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2021, upon consideration of the report1 of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., issued on January 26, 2021, wherein Judge Saporito recommends that the court dismiss the above-captioned actions without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing and administrative fees despite being ordered to do so, and it appearing that plaintiff 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 1 Judge Saporito’s report appears at Docket Entry No. 5 in the first-filed action, Hartman v. Cocker, No. 1:20-CV-2279, and at Docket Entry No. 4 in all other actions. 3 Case 1:20-cv-02283-CCC Document 5 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 4 committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court agreeing with Judge Saporito’s analysis and recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Judge Saporito’s report is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing and administrative fees. 3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

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?