Dixon v. Williams et al
Filing
147
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick 145 ; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 119 is DENIED; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 123 is GRANTED; John Doe defendants are DISMISSED; Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff; Clerk is directed to close the case file. (See order for further details). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/14/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH EDWARD DIXON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER WILLIAMS, Investigator,
JOHN DOES 1-5,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 4:13-CV-2762
(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)
ORDER
February 14, 2017
Plaintiff, Joseph Edward Dixon, filed a complaint on October 7, 2013,
naming as Defendants various members of the Pennsylvania State Police, only one
identified by name, Defendant Roger Williams; the others are merely named John
Does. Because he is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff’s case was jointly assigned to
Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick.
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
1
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
1
objections.2 When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de
novo review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.3 Although
the standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the
discretion of the district court, and the court may otherwise rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.4
Dixon and Williams filed cross motions for summary judgment. On January
23, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation5 recommending
granting Defendant’s motion and denying Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff subsequently
filed what I will construe as objections to the report and recommendation.6
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."7
2
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
3
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).
4
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
5
ECF No. 145.
6
ECF No. 146.
7
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)).
2
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.8
Because I write only for the parties, I will conserve judicial resources and not
rehash the report and recommendation. The Plaintiff’s objections are overruled, as
he has provided no persuasive argument sufficient to find that the magistrate judge
erred. The report and recommendation will be adopted in full and the matter
dismissed.
Moreover, the John Doe Defendants must be dismissed. “While fictitious
defendants “are routinely used as stand-ins for real parties until discovery permits
the intended defendants to be installed,” our case law makes it clear that “an action
cannot proceed solely against unnamed parties.””9
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
1.
United States Magistrate Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. January 23, 2017, ECF No.
145.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. April 25,
8
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
9
Davidson v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 2008 WL 5330544, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec.
15, 2008) citing Hines v. FDIC, 137 F.3d 148, 155, 159 (3d Cir.1998).
3
2016, ECF No. 119.
3.
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. May 6,
2016, ECF No. 123.
4.
The John Doe defendants are DISMISSED from the action.
5.
Final judgment is to be entered in favor of Defendants and against
Plaintiff.
6.
The Clerk is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?