From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeLeo v. Spaulding

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 9, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-2321 (M.D. Pa. May. 9, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-2321

05-09-2016

RALPH FRANCIS DELEO, Plaintiff v. S. SPAULDING, WARDEN, Defendant


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of May, 2016, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 8) of plaintiff Ralph Francis Deleo ("Deleo") for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), (see Doc. 12 at 4-11); see also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii), 1915A(b)(1), and further recommending the court deny Deleo's motion (Doc. 11) for appointment of counsel as moot, (see Doc. 12 at 11), and it appearing that Deleo did not object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court in agreement with Judge Saporito's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2. The amended complaint (Doc. 8) of plaintiff Ralph Francis Deleo ("Deleo") is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

3. Deleo's motion (Doc. 11) for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot.

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

DeLeo v. Spaulding

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 9, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-2321 (M.D. Pa. May. 9, 2016)
Case details for

DeLeo v. Spaulding

Case Details

Full title:RALPH FRANCIS DELEO, Plaintiff v. S. SPAULDING, WARDEN, Defendant

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

Date published: May 9, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-2321 (M.D. Pa. May. 9, 2016)