From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

BEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-2290 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-2290.

January 31, 2011


ORDER


AND NOW, this 31st day of January, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 6), recommending that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed and plaintiff's request for pretrial discovery be denied as moot, 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 of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. Plaintiff's request for pretrial discovery (Doc. 1-3) is DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.


Summaries of

BEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-2290 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2011)
Case details for

BEY v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case Details

Full title:AMIR MAJIKE BEY, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, COUNTY OF…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 31, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-2290 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2011)

Citing Cases

Mechelle v. Shapiro

Thus, the first prong is met. It is clear that Pennsylvania has an important interest in construing and…