From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Floyd v. Commonwealth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 8, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1420 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1420

08-08-2017

CHARLES FLOYD, JR., Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH, et al., Defendants


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 19) of Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, issued following comprehensive review of the amended complaint (Doc. 8) of pro se plaintiff Charles Floyd, Jr. ("Floyd"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), wherein Judge Schwab recommends that the court dismiss Floyd's amended complaint for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and further recommends that leave to amend be denied in view of Floyd's repeated failure to cure the deficiencies identified in his pleading, (see Doc. 19 at 15-28), and it appearing that no party has objected 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 t 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 independent review of the record, the court being in full agreement with Judge Schwab's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

On July 3, 2017, the court received correspondence purporting to be authored by a "Dr. Morganstein" indicating that Floyd had been hospitalized and would remain hospitalized until approximately July 6, 2017. (Doc. 20). In view of this correspondence, the court withheld review of Judge Schwab's report for one month to allow for late-filed objections by Floyd. Having received none, the court concludes that Floyd has waived the opportunity to object to the report. --------

1. The report (Doc. 19) of Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED.

2. Floyd's amended complaint (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED with prejudice.

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

4. Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Floyd v. Commonwealth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 8, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1420 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2017)
Case details for

Floyd v. Commonwealth

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES FLOYD, JR., Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Aug 8, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1420 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2017)