From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hockenberry v. Pa. Parole & Prob.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jan 4, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1589 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2016)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1589

01-04-2016

JASON HOCKENBERRY, Plaintiff v. PA. PAROLE & PROBATION, et al., Defendants


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that the court dismiss plaintiff's pro se civil rights complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to state a viable claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (Doc. 13 at 6-11), and further recommending that dismissal be without leave to amend in light of the incurable deficiencies in plaintiff's pleading, (id. at 11), and it appearing that plaintiff 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 Intern., 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 being in agreement with Judge Saporito's recommended disposition and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 13) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff's complaint (Docs. 1, 1-2) is DISMISSED.

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

Hockenberry v. Pa. Parole & Prob.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Jan 4, 2016
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1589 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2016)
Case details for

Hockenberry v. Pa. Parole & Prob.

Case Details

Full title:JASON HOCKENBERRY, Plaintiff v. PA. PAROLE & PROBATION, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: Jan 4, 2016

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1589 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 4, 2016)