Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-1099.
November 30, 2011.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of November, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mildred E. Methvin (Doc. 39), recommending that defendants' motions for summary judgment (Docs. 17, 20) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on October 27, 2011 (Doc. 40), and the court finding Judge Methvin' analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiff' objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Methvin' report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Methvin (Doc. 39) are ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' motions for summary judgment (Docs. 17, 20) are GRANTED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.
Where objections to a magistrate judge' 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. (citingShields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).