From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kemper v. Steinhart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 24, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1833 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 24, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1833

06-24-2019

DOUGLAS KEMPER, Plaintiff v. JOHN STEINHART, Corrections Health Care Administrator, et al., Defendants


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 59) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that the recent filing by pro se plaintiff Douglas Kemper ("Kemper") be denied to the extent that the filing is construed as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and further recommending that the above-captioned case be dismissed with prejudice due to Kemper's failure to file an amended complaint within the time period set forth in the court's March 4, 2019 order (Doc. 54), and it appearing that Kemper has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should afford "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Saporito's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 59) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2. Kemper's filing (Doc. 58) is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) and is DENIED as so construed.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4. Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Kemper v. Steinhart

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jun 24, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1833 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 24, 2019)
Case details for

Kemper v. Steinhart

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS KEMPER, Plaintiff v. JOHN STEINHART, Corrections Health Care…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 24, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1833 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 24, 2019)