Hill v. Mastriano
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 7 Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation is adopted; 2 Hill's motion for ifp is granted; 1 Hill's complaint is dismissed with prejudice; 6 Clement's motion to intervene is denied; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Matthew W. Brann on 8/2/2022. (Case closed.)(lg)
Case 4:22-cv-00556-MWB Document 13 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JEFFREY D. HILL,
(Chief Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)
AUGUST 2, 2022
Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 15, 2022, 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 April 26, 2022, United States Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, to
whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that 1) Hill’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be
granted, 2) this case be dismissed without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and 3) Calvin Clements’s motion to intervene be denied.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 4:22-cv-00556-MWB Document 13 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 3
Calvin Clements, Proposed Intervenor, filed objections to the report and
recommendation on May 10, 2022. “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.’”3 Portions of a report and recommendation to which no
objections are filed are reviewed only for clear error.4 Regardless of whether timely
objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in
part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.5
Because the Court writes solely for the parties, it will not restate the facts, but
will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. The
Court has conducted a de novo review here and found no error. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 7) is ADOPTED.
Hill’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations
regardless of whether objections were filed); see also Snyder v. Bender, 548 F. App’x 767, 771
(3d Cir. 2013) (noting that district courts need not conduct de novo review of portions of
recommendation to which no party files specific objections).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Case 4:22-cv-00556-MWB Document 13 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 3
Hill’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Clements’s motion to intervene (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
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?