Sheffer v. Ctr. Cnty.

Full title: MATTHEW JOHN SHEFFER, Plaintiff, v. CENTRE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 7, 2022

4:18-CV-02080 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2022)

Opinion

4:18-CV-02080

03-07-2022

MATTHEW JOHN SHEFFER, Plaintiff, v. CENTRE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

MATTHEW W. BRANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Mehalchick Chief Magistrate Judge

ORDER

MATTHEW W. BRANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Matthew John Sheffer, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this civil rights complaint alleging that numerous defendants violated his rights during the course of his arrest, detention, and conviction in state court.¹ In January 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant three motions to dismiss filed by Defendants.²Sheffer filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.³

1 Doc. 1.

2 Doc. 70.

3 Doc. 72.

“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'”⁴ Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify-in whole or in part-the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.⁵ After conducting a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no error in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's recommendation that Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted.⁶ Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4 Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

6 Although Sheffer objects in part because Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick notes that the motions to dismiss are unopposed, Doc. 72, that conclusion does not form the basis of her Report and Recommendation, and dismissal is warranted for the reasons set forth by Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick therein.

1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 70) is ADOPTED;

2. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 57, 59, 65) are GRANTED, and all claims are dismissed with prejudice-with the exception of Sheffer's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Jeffrey Ebeck, which is dismissed without prejudice;

3. Sheffer's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 73) is DENIED; and

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.