Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-2278.
May 24, 2011
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 133), recommending that defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiff filed objections to the report on April 12, 2011 (Doc. 138), and the court finding Judge Carlson's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiff's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 133) are ADOPTED.
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 84) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of defendant and against plaintiff.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).