Opinion
4:23-CV-1044
11-20-2023
MICHAEL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, eta/., Defendant.
Bloom Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge
AND NOW, THIS 20th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023, upon review of Magistrate Judge Daryl Bloom's Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 10) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
On November 8,2023, a document from Plaintiff, dated November 1,2023, was filed of record stating, in its entirety, “I object intirely [sic] to this R&R Brief/motion ORDER to follow.” (Doc. 11). Although it is not clear if Plaintiffs statement was meant to convey that he would be filing a brief in support of his objection, as of the date of this Order, no supporting brief or further documentation has been filed. Plaintiffs cursory filing (Doc. 11) is insufficient to rise to the level of an Objection to the R&R. If a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193,195 (3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while Plaintiffs filing was arguably timely filed, he has only made a generalized objection to the entire R&R and has failed to identify any specific portions of the R&R or proposed findings to which he objects. The Court thus need not engage in a de novo analysis. Nonetheless, upon review of the relevant documents, even if this Court applied a de novo review, the result would be the same.
1. The R&R (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action.