BROOKING v. D.O.C. AND EMPLOYEES AT SCI CAMP HILL et al

Filing 45

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 44 Magistrate Judge Saporito's Report and Recommendation is adopted; 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Saporito for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 10/28/2020. (lg)

Case 3:15-cv-02134-MWB-JFS Document 45 Filed 10/28/20 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARCUS DION BROOKING,

No. 3:15-CV-02134

Plaintiff,

(Judge Brann)

v.

(Magistrate Judge Saporito)

D.O.C., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
OCTOBER 28, 2020
Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 21, 2015. The case was
reassigned to me and referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.. Upon
designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary
hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations.”1 Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated
to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.2
On September 25, 2020 Magistrate Judge Saporito, to whom this matter is
jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation, recommending that
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and that the matter be
remanded to Magistrate Judge Saporito for consideration of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.

1
2

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Case 3:15-cv-02134-MWB-JFS Document 45 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 2

No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. For
portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the
Court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”3 Regardless of
whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not
accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.4
Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will
instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have
conducted a de novo review here and found no error.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Magistrate Judge Saporito’s September 25, 2020, Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 44) is ADOPTED in full.

2.

The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Saporito for further
proceedings.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

3

4

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d
874, 878 (3d Cir.1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
-2-