Aguilar v. Pacific Orthopedic Medical Group et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Mannion 28 , GRANTING Dr. Chandrasekaran's motion to dismiss or transfer 19 in part (see Para 3 below) & remaining motions 18 & 19 are dismissed as MOOT, directing Clrk of Ct to transfer case to Eastern District of California, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 11/14/12. (ki)

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

RAMON AGUILAR,
Plaintiff
v.
PACIFIC ORTHOPEDIC MEDICAL
GROUP, CLEMENT ALADE,
P.R. CHANDRASEKARAN,
MARSHALL S. LEWIS and YOUNG N.
PAIK,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:12-CV-1060
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of November, 2012, upon consideration of the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 28),
recommending that Dr. Chandrasekaran’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 19) be granted, and,
following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has
objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and that there is no clear

error on the face of the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007)
(explaining that “failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil
proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”), it is
hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Doc. 28)
are ADOPTED.

2.

Dr. Chandrasekaran’s motion to dismiss or transfer (Doc. 19) is GRANTED
in part as set forth in paragraph 3 below and the remaining motions, set
forth in Docs. 18 and 19, are dismissed as moot.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer the above-captioned case to the
Eastern District of California.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

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

1

When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to
review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a
matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some
level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the
failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss
of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d
676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the
“plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the
face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The
court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
accordance with this Third Circuit directive.