Martin v. Lackawanna County et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 49 , DISMISSING action, and CLOSING case. Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 1/12/2016. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________
JACOB MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
LACKAWANNA COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-1507
(Judge Kosik)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2016, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT
THAT:
(1) Plaintiff, Jacob Martin, formerly an inmate at the Lackawanna County
Prison, filed a Complaint in the instant action on August 3, 2012. An Amended
Complaint (Doc. 36) was filed on August 5, 2013;
(2) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick;
(3) After screening the Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 39) on March 26, 2014, recommending that the
Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) be dismissed;
(4) On August 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 46) to the Report and
Recommendation;
(5) On November 13, 2015, we issued a Memorandum (Doc. 47) and Order
(Doc. 48), dismissing some of Plaintiff’s claims; directing Plaintiff to file a Second
Amended Complaint as to his 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1985 claims and any state law
claims; and, remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings;
(6) On December 23, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 49), recommending that the instant civil rights action be
dismissed, because Plaintiff failed to comply with this court’s Order of November 13,

2015 (Doc. 48) directing him to file a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30)
days;
(7) No Objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation;
AND, IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:
(8) If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the plaintiff is not statutorily entitled to a de novo review of his
claims. 28 U.S.C.A.§636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985).
Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district court is to give “reasoned
consideration” to a magistrate judge’s report prior to adopting it. Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987);
(9) We have reviewed the Report of the Magistrate Judge and agree with her
recommendation;
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karoline
Mehalchick (Doc. 49) filed on December 23, 2015, is ADOPTED;
(2) The above-captioned action is DISMISSED; and,
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and to forward a copy of
this Order to the Magistrate Judge.

s/Edwin M. Kosik
Edwin M. Kosik
United States District Judge