Brown v. Monroy

Full title: EVAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ADRIENNE MONROY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 29, 2024

1:22-CV-01401 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2024)

Opinion

1:22-CV-01401

10-29-2024

EVAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. ADRIENNE MONROY, et al., Defendants.

Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge

Carlson, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge

Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 8, 2022, and it was eventually jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”¹Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.²

1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).

2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

On September 30, 2024, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that I dismiss Plaintiff's false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to intervene claims but otherwise deny the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Adrienne Monroy, Michael Smith, and Arthur Etnoyer, Jr.

No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.³ Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify-in whole or in part-the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.⁴

3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed).

4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

Because the Court writes solely for the parties, it will not restate the facts, but will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. The Court has conducted a de novo review here and found no error.

AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) is ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendants Adrienne Monroy's, Michael Smith's, and Arthur Etnoyer, Jr.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is GRANTED IN PART;

a. Plaintiff Evan Brown's false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to intervene claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is OTHERWISE DENIED; and

4. This matter is remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson.