Opinion
Civil Action 19-1196
12-13-2021
RAHEEM WILLIS, Plaintiff, v. DENICE SMYTH, M.D., Defendant.
CYNTHIA REED EDDY, CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MEMORANDUM ORDER
CATHY BISSOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case has been referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
On October 28, 2021, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 90) recommending that Defendant Denice Smyth, M.D. (“Defendant Smyth”)'s Motion (Doc. 73) for summary judgment be granted. Service of the R&R was made on the parties, and Plaintiff filed Objections, to which Defendant Smyth filed a Response in Opposition. See Docs. 93 and 95.
After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the R&R and the Objections and Response thereto, the following Order is entered:
Defendant Smyth's Motion (Doc. 73) for summary judgment is GRANTED; Plaintiff's “Motion for Denial of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 85) is DENIED; the claims against the twenty-five John and Jane Does are DISMISSED; and the R&R (Doc. 90) is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court.
See R&R at 2 n.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 94) is denied. The prior denial (see Docs. 60, 63) is law of the case, and the legal standards for reconsideration have not been met. See Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (requiring a change in controlling law; newly-acquired and previously unavailable evidence; clear error of law or fact; or manifest injustice).
IT IS SO ORDERED.