Kim v. Columbia County Children and Youth Service

Filing 53

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: United States Magistrate Joseph F. Saporitos Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. 52 Defendants Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED to the extent of this Order adopting the report and recommendation. 40 Th e action is dismissed with prejudice and final judgment is to be entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to close the case file. SEE Order for further details. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/15/2017. (jn) Modified on 2/15/2017 (jn).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WASHINGTON KIM,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
COLUMBIA COUNTY CHILDREN :
AND YOUTH SERVICE,
:
:
Defendant.
:

Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-2331
(Judge Brann)

(Magistrate Judge Saporito)

ORDER
February 15, 2017

Plaintiff, Washington Kim, filed a complaint on December 3, 2015, naming
as Defendant the Columbia County Children and Youth Service. Because he is
proceeding pro se, Plaintiff’s case was jointly assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph
F. Saporito.
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
The current procedural posture is a Motion for Sanctions by Defendant
requesting that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice. Magistrate Judge
Saporito issued a comprehensive and well-written report and recommendation on
December 19, 2016, ECF No. 52, recommending that the request be granted.
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."5
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

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

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

made by the magistrate judge.6
Because I write only for the parties, I will conserve judicial resources and not
rehash the report and recommendation. The report and recommendation will be
adopted in full and the matter dismissed with prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
1.

United States Magistrate Joseph F. Saporito’s Report and
Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. December 19, 2016, ECF No.
52.

2.

Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is GRANTED to the extent of this
Order adopting the report and recommendation. August 19, 2016, ECF
No. 40.

3.

The action is dismissed with prejudice and final judgment is to be
entered in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.

4.

The Clerk is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:

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

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
3