Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-1727.
August 16, 2011
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of August, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mildred E. Methvin (Doc. 129), recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76) be granted as to Count III (§ 1983 — Right to Privacy), and, following an independent review of the record and noting that defendants filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on July 19, 2011 (Doc. 138), and the court finding Judge Methvin's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding defendants' objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Methvin's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Methvin (Doc. 129) are ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76) is GRANTED as to Count III (§ 1983 — Right to Privacy). The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
3. This matter shall be scheduled for trial by separate order of the court.
Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).