GEARY v. SGT. JOHN DOE et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendation; A pretrial order follows separately, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 7/25/2017. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE GEARY,

Case No. 3:14-cv-106

Plaintiff,

JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON

v.
SERGEANT JOHN DOE #1, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Tyrone Geary, an inmate at SCI Albion, filed this case on May 28, 2014, against several
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections employees at SCI Somerset over an alleged assault that
occurred while Geary was confined at SCI Somerset. Geary's complaint names Sergeant John
Does #1 through #5, David Onstead, and Correctional Officer Coutts as Defendants.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Civil Rule 72, Geary's case was referred to a
magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings.

After screening Geary's complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge issued an order, report and recommendation (ECF No.
5), recommending that Geary's complaint be dismissed in part for failure to state a claim and
served in part. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for failure to state a
claim with respect to John Does #3 through #5 and ordered service on Onstead and Coutts. The
Magistrate Judge also noted that service would be ordered on John Does #1 and #2 if their
identity was revealed during discovery, and that Geary would be permitted to amend his
complaint with respect to John Doe #3.
Geary filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's order, report and recommendation
and the case proceeded to discovery. Discovery concluded some time ago and the case appears
ready for trial, though the Court never ruled on the Magistrate Judge's order, report and
recommendation. The Court was remiss in not ruling on that report and recommendation
earlier but will do so now. Because Geary filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's order,
report and recommendation (ECF No. 5) and because no clear error is apparent on the face of

the record, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's order, report and recommendation. I
A pretrial order follows separately.
Dated: July 25, 2017

BY THE COURT:

KIM R. GIBSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

When parties do not timely object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Federal
Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. See Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Nevertheless, as a matter of good practice the Third Circuit expects district
courts to "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). Thus, when no objections are filed, "the district court is required
only to review the record for 'clear error' prior to accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation." Cobbs
v. Wynder, No. 05-cv-1966, 2006 WL 559449, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2006); see also Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.
Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court's review is conducted under the "plain error"
standard).
1

-2-