From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Soriano v. Cnty. of Luzerne

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 11, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2206 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2206

12-11-2012

ADAMILKA SORIANO, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF LUZERNE, et al., Defendants


(Judge Conner)


ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 32), recommending that defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 28) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

When parties fail to file timely objections 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects 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). The advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that "the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court"); 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); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court's review is limited to ascertaining whether there is "clear error on the face of the record"); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for "clear error"). The court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 32) are ADOPTED.
2. Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 28) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without further leave to amend.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

______________________

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Soriano v. Cnty. of Luzerne

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Dec 11, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2206 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012)
Case details for

Soriano v. Cnty. of Luzerne

Case Details

Full title:ADAMILKA SORIANO, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF LUZERNE, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Dec 11, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-2206 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2012)

Citing Cases

Miller v. Advocare, LLC

Third, Plaintiff's failure to attend two court hearings, failure to advise the court of her intent to proceed…

Battista v. Advanced Fin. Serv.

Briscoe, 538 F.3d at 261 (3d Cir. 2008); Donnelly, 677 F.2d at 343 (3d Cir. 1982); Soriano v. County of…