Hamilton v. Bromley

Full title: HARRY E. HAMILTON Plaintiff v. NICOLE BROMLEY, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jul 2, 2015

Case No. 4:14-CV-2248 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 2, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 4:14-CV-2248

07-02-2015

HARRY E. HAMILTON Plaintiff v. NICOLE BROMLEY, et al., Defendants

Judge Brann

() (Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

ORDER

BACKGROUND:

On June 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) in which she advised the Court to dismiss all claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, as the Younger doctrine requires abstention (Younger v. Harris, 301 U.S. 37 (1971); Dixon v. Kuhn, 257 Fed.Appx. 553, 555 (3d Cir. 2007)). No objections have been filed by the Plaintiff.

This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation to detect clear non-conformance with well-established law. See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3^rd Cir. 1987) (although the Court is not required to review magistrate judge's report absent objections, "the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report"). Because this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's recommendations, the Court will not rehash the sound reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The June 15, 2015 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED in full.

2. All claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED, as the Younger doctrine requires abstention.

3. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge