Johnson v. Koehler et al

Filing 44

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 40 Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation is adopted; 32 Amended Complaint is dismissed; final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 9/10/2020. (lg)

Case 4:18-cv-00807-MWB Document 44 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON,

No. 4:18-CV-00807

Plaintiff,

(Judge Brann)

v.

(Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

WALTER KOEHLER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020
Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 13, 2018, and it was jointly
assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. 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 objections.2
On June 11, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, to whom this
matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed with prejudice,

1
2

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Case 4:18-cv-00807-MWB Document 44 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 3

that final judgment be entered in favor of Defendants, and that the Clerk of Clerk
be directed to close this case.
Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation on June 15, 2020
and on June 23, 2020. 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 that it deems
proper.4 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 made by the magistrate judge.6

3
4

5

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
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)).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
-2-

Case 4:18-cv-00807-MWB Document 44 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 3

Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will
instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have
conducted a de novo review here and found no error.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s June 11, 2020 Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 40, is ADOPTED in full.

2.

Plaintiff Armoni Masud Johnson’s Amended Complaint, Doc. 32-1, is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

Final judgment is entered in favor of Defendants.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case file.

BY THE COURT:

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

-3-