Carter v. Lawler et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the magistrate judge 32 ; STRIKING pltf's proposed 2nd amended complant 29 from docket, GRANTING defts' motion to dismiss pltf's amended complaint 19 & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 06/17/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRED CARTER,
Plaintiff
v.
RAYMOND LAWLER, CHARLES
MITCHELL, ROBERT B. MACINTYRE,
C/O DIFFIN and C/O EBERLING,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-1266
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 32),
recommending that the plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (Doc. 29) be
stricken and defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 19) be
granted, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiff
filed objections1 to the report on May 24, 2011 (Doc. 37), and the court finding Judge
Carlson’s analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiff’s
objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson’s report, it is
hereby ORDERED that:

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. Supinski 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 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)).

1.

The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 32) are
ADOPTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s proposed second amended complaint (Doc. 29) is STRICKEN
from the docket.

3.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 19) is
GRANTED.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge