Njos v. Argueta et al

Filing 262

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito (Doc. 255) is ADOPTED in its entirety.2. The Court ADOPTS the proposed findings of fact and conclusions oflaw as set forth by the Magistrate Judge within the Report andRecommendation. 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case. 255 Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 4/6/17. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SCOTT NJOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
S. ARGUETA, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

3:12-cv-1038

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

ORDER
April 6, 2017
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
255) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that
we adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the
report, which were arrived at by the Magistrate Judge following a full evidentiary
hearing on the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, and further recommending that judgment be granted in
favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and
noting that Plaintiff has filed objections (Doc. 261) 1, and the Court finding Judge

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. Supinksi 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
1

Saporito’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the
record, and the Court further finding Plaintiff’s objections to be without merit2 IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito (Doc.
255) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The Court ADOPTS the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law as set forth by the Magistrate Judge within the Report and
Recommendation.
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, judgment is ENTERED as a matter of
law in favor of all remaining Defendants and against Plaintiff, based on
our determination that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997E(a).
4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case.
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). Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits
whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 674-75 (1980); see also Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark,
749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).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).
2

Plaintiff’s submission contains no arguments that cause us to depart from the Magistrate
Judge’s appropriate reasoning and correct conclusions.

2

s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

3