LUCAS v. FRANCISCO et al

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report of Judge Arbuckle 10 is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. 1 . Clerk shall mark this matter CLOSED. Signed by Honorable Karoline Mehalchick on 3/10/2025. (cw)

Case 3:24-cv-01172-KM

Document 12

Filed 03/10/25

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EDDIE CURTIS LUCAS, JR.
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-01172

v.

(MEHALCHICK, J.)

MEJIA
FRANCISCO
PIPENBRINK,

&

ERIC

Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Eddie Lee Curtis Lucas (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against Mejia Francisco
and Eric Pipenbrink (collectively, “Defendants”) along with a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis on July 1, 2024. (Doc. 1). The case was transferred to this Court from the Western
District of Pennsylvania on July 16, 2024. (Doc. 2; Doc. 10, at 1). On August 8, 2024,
Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
(Doc. 7). Judge Arbuckle subsequently screened the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2) and issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. 10). No objections have been filed to
the Report. As such, the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation.
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28

Case 3:24-cv-01172-KM

Document 12

Filed 03/10/25

Page 2 of 2

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de
novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of
review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on
the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v.
Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). For those sections 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.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b).
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in Judge Arbuckle’s Report and finds no
clear error on the face of the record. (Doc. 10). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT the Report of Judge Arbuckle (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. (Doc. 1).
Clerk shall mark this matter CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Karoline Mehalchick

Date: March 10, 2025

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge

-2-