From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ortiz v. Baird

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 28, 2013
Civil Action No. 10-1753 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-1753

03-28-2013

ISMAEL ACEVEDO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL JEROME BAIRD, ET AL, Defendants.


Chief District Judge Gary L. Lancaster/

Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly


MEMORANDUM ORDER

The record in this case indicates that the above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) on December 29, 2010, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the local rules of this court.

On February 15, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 50) recommending that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (ECF No. 43) be granted. Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his address of record and was advised that he was permitted to file written objections, in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflected by the filing of the Report and Recommendation, with the Clerk of Court. That deadline was later extended to March 25, 2013. No objections were filed by that date and consequently, on March 26, 2013, I entered separate orders granting defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, adopting the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court, and closing the instant case (ECF No. 52), and granting final judgment to defendants in this action (ECF No. 53).

Present before the Court is plaintiff's "Motion Objection to Magistrate Maureen P. Kelly's Report & Recommendation" (ECF No. 54), which the Court will construe as plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, These objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Therefore, after a second de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and the delinquent objection thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 28TH day of March, 2013, that the orders of March 26, 2013 (ECF Nos. 52 and 53) are CONFIRMED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 43) is granted and the Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 50), dated February 15, 2013, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if any party wishes to appeal from this Order, a notice of appeal, as provided by Fed.R.App.P.3, must be filed with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, at 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, within thirty (30) days.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________

Hon. Gary L. Lancaster

Chief United States District Judge
cc: Hon. Maureen P. Kelly,

United States Magistrate Judge

Ismael Acevedo Ortiz, FY-3422

SCI-Frackville

1111 Altamont Boulevard

Frackville, PA 17931

All Counsel of Record by electronic filing


Summaries of

Ortiz v. Baird

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mar 28, 2013
Civil Action No. 10-1753 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2013)
Case details for

Ortiz v. Baird

Case Details

Full title:ISMAEL ACEVEDO ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL JEROME BAIRD, ET AL, Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 28, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-1753 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 28, 2013)