Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1075
09-12-2012
MICHAEL JOHN PISKANIN, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND ITS LEGISLATURE AND SUPREME COURT AND THEIR CURRENT MEMBERS, Defendants
(Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 8), recommending that plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) be denied and plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiff filed objections to the report on August 22, 2012 (Doc. 9), and the court finding Judge Mannion's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiff's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Mannion's report (Doc. 10), it is hereby ORDERED that:
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)).
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Doc. 8) are ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
5. Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
____________________
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge