DeRaffele v. City of Williamsport et al

Filing 104

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III's 100 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety and Pro Se Plaintiff John DeRaffele's 95 Motion to Seek Court Cost Fees, Secretarial Costs, and Printing Costs is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 4/17/2018. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 4:14-CV-01849

JOHN DERAFFELE,

(Judge Brann)

Plaintiff.
v.
CITY OF WILLIAMSPORT, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
APRIL 17, 2018

Before the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III on March 16, 2018.1 In this Report,
Magistrate Judge Arbuckle recommended that Plaintiff John DeRaffele’s Motion
to Seek Court Cost Fees, Secretarial Costs, and Printing Costs in the Above Action
be denied because (1) the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 Offer of Judgment
included all costs recoverable by Plaintiff, (2) as a pro se litigant, he is generally
barred from recovering such fees, and (3) he has offered no evidence
demonstrating bad faith by Defendants.2 Plaintiff has filed Objections to the

1 

ECF No. 100. 

2

Id.  

- 1 -

conclusions of the Report and Recommendation, and the matter has since been
fully briefed.3
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.”4 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.5 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.6
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.7 For
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objection is made, a 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.”8 Regardless of whether

3

4  

See M.D.Pa. LR 72.3; M.D.Pa. LR 72.2 (setting forth the briefing schedule for Objections to
Reports and Recommendation).
  28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

5

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).

7

Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

8

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 -

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.9
In the instant matter, I have duly considered Plaintiff’s Objections and
provided de novo review to the portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which they correspond. I find them to be without merit. Magistrate Judge
Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation is well-reasoned, and correctly notes that
pro se litigants are generally not entitled to recover attorney fees.10 I am in further
agreement that, in the absence of evidence of bad faith by the Defendants, the plain
language of the Offer of Judgment, which includes all costs recoverable to
Plaintiff, controls.11
AND NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 100) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and

9

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

10

See Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 435–37 (1991); Pager v. Metropolitan Edison, No. 17-CV934, 2018 WL 491014, at *3 (M.D.Pa. Jan. 19, 2018). 

11

See Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 100) at 8. See also Offer of Judgment (ECF No.
83) ¶ 2 (“Judgment in the amount of ten thousand ($10,000.00) includes all costs recoverable
by Plaintiff pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 68.”). 

- 3 -

2. Pro se Plaintiff John DeRaffele’s Motion to Seek Court Cost Fees,
Secretarial Costs, and Printing Costs in the Above Action (ECF No.
95) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

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

- 4 -