Stubbs, et al v. The City of Wilkes-Barre, PA et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of magistrate judge 20 , DISMISSING CASE & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 05/16/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HENRY CHRISTOPHER STUBBS, III,
and LARRY TOOLEY, SR.,
Plaintiffs
v.
THE CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, PA,
et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-452
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of May, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser (Doc. 20),
recommending that the federal claims be dismissed and that the court decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims, and, following an independent
review of the record and noting that plaintiffs filed objections1 to the report on April 25,
2011 (Doc. 23), and the court finding Judge Smyser’s analysis to be thorough and wellreasoned, and the court finding plaintiffs’ objections to be without merit and squarely
addressed by Judge Smyser’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1.

The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 20) are
ADOPTED.

2.

The federal claims are DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state
law claims.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

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