Opinion
3:22-cv-224
09-30-2024
KEITH ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. CASEY JAMES, et al.,Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge ("Magistrate Judge Dodge") for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.
On October 5, 2023, the Court docketed pro se plaintiff Keith Alexander's ("Mr. Alexander") Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 81). On January 19, 2024, Defendant Terri Sechrengost ("Ms. Sechrengost") filed a "Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint[,]" requesting that the Court "dismiss all claims against her from the Amended Complaintf.]" (ECF No. 96 at 1).
On July 3, 2024, Magistrate Judge Dodge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court deny Ms. Sechrengost's Motion at ECF No. 96. (ECF No. Ill. at 8). Further, Magistrate Judge Dodge noted that the parties were permitted to file "objections to [the] Report and Recommendation" within fourteen days. (Id. at 12). Finally, she stated that "[f]ailure to do so will waive the right to appeal." (Id.) (citing Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187,193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Neither party has filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation, and the timeframe within which to do so has passed. (See docket entry accompanying ECF No. 111). Accordingly, upon reasoned consideration of the Record and the Report and Recommendation, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017), the Court will adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Dodge in this matter. Cf. Hickey v. Merritt-Scully, No. 4:18-CV-01793, 2022 WL 883851, at *12 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2022); Abrante v. Guarini, No. 12-CV-6860, 2014 WL 5795596, at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2014).
Therefore, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this ' day of September, 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation at ECF No. Ill. is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court for its reasoning and conclusions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 96 is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. Ill. and those above.