Opinion
3:22-cv-94
07-12-2023
NIARA BURTON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN E. WETZEL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.
On March 21, 2023, plaintiff Niara Burton ("Plaintiff") filed a "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction!.]" (ECF No. 38). On May 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Pesto filed a Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny this motion without hearing. (ECF No. 45). The Magistrate Judge notified Plaintiff that she would have fourteen days to file written objections to the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Id. at 4). Because Plaintiff was a non-registered ECF user, she had until May 30, 2023, to file written objections. (See generally id.).
Neither party filed objections to the R&R, timely or otherwise. Because neither party filed timely objections thereto, the Court need give only "reasoned consideration" to the R&R by "affording] some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report).]" EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017).
The only document that Plaintiff has filed since the R&R was entered is a letter mailed to the Court on June 12, 2023. (ECF No. 46). This letter reads in full as follows: "this letter regarding my failed reception of marshal forms, waiver of summons, notice of lawsuit for each defendant in individual and official capacity as to assist with the serv[ice] of suit." (Id.). Even construing this letter liberally, the Court finds no basis for understanding it to state written objections to Magistrate Judge Pesto's R&R at ECF No. 45.
Upon reasoned consideration of the above filings, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 12th day of July, 2023, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pesto's R&R at ECF No. 45 is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court for its reasoning and conclusion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion at ECF No. 38 is DENIED without hearing.