Robertson v. Executive Director Brain Institute Geisinger Medical Center

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 6 is granted. 2) The Report and Recommendation 5 is adopted. 3) The complaint 1 is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an am ended complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of this order to correct the defects cited in the Report and Recommendation. 4) This matter is recommitted to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 2/19/14. (ts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARCO MIGUEL ROBERTSON,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-10
(JUDGE CAPUTO)

Plaintiff,

(MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARLSON)

v.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BRAIN
INSTITUTE, GEISINGER MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendant.
ORDER

NOW, this 18th day of February, 2014, upon review of the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 5) for plain error or
manifest injustice and Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9),1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 6) is
GRANTED.

(2)

The Report & Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED.

(3)

The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may
file an Amended Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of entry of
this order to correct the defects cited in the Report and Recommendation.

1

Where objections to the Magistrate Judge's report are filed, the Court
must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the report.
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). However, this only applies to the extent that a
party's objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5,
6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). Because the Objection does not address the fact that
Plaintiff failed to name any federal officials as defendants or that he seeks
relief beyond the power of the private Defendant to provide, the Report
and Recommendation has been reviewed for clear error or manifest
injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376–77 (M.D. Pa.
1998).

(4)

The matter is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further
proceedings.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge

2