Opinion
2:21-cv-01206-RJC-PLD
11-21-2022
NICHOLAS WEIR, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH, et al., Defendants.
Patricia L. Dodge Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Robert J. Colville United States District Judge
Currently pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge's August 18, 2022 Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 112), which recommends that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 98) filed by Defendants the University of Pittsburgh, John Horn, Kara Bernstein, and Vice Dean Ann Thompson (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants' Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal with prejudice of each of the claims set forth in the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 94) filed by Plaintiff Nicholas Weir in this matter on the basis that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Report and Recommendation further recommends that, because Plaintiff has already amended his complaint twice but still fails to allege sufficient facts to support any claim upon which relief could be granted, dismissal of his claims should be with prejudice. On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed timely objections (ECF No. 115) to Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation. This matter is ripe for disposition.
Objections to a magistrate judge's disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,'” and has “described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.'” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)).
Upon consideration of Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation, and following a de novo review of the relevant docket entries and the entire record in this matter, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 112), and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Dodge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court with respect to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 115) to the Report and Recommendation are overruled. It is hereby further ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 98) is granted, and Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 94) is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 116) is denied as moot.
It is hereby 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 in 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.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed.