FANG v. STATE, 12-5095 (MAS) (DEA). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
Number: infdco20150515e17
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 14, 2015
Latest Update: May 14, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MICHAEL A. SHIPP , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court following the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J., recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to comply with certain orders of the Court and otherwise prosecute the matter. (ECF No. 29.) No objections to the R&R were filed within the fourteen days provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 72.l
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MICHAEL A. SHIPP , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court following the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J., recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to comply with certain orders of the Court and otherwise prosecute the matter. (ECF No. 29.) No objections to the R&R were filed within the fourteen days provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 72.l(..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
MICHAEL A. SHIPP, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court following the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Douglas E. Arpert, U.S.M.J., recommending the dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint, with prejudice, for failure to comply with certain orders of the Court and otherwise prosecute the matter. (ECF No. 29.) No objections to the R&R were filed within the fourteen days provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Civil Rule 72.l(c)(2).
Although a Court need not review a Magistrate Judge's R&R when no objections have been filed, Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985), "the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Arpert's well-reasoned R&R, which considered and applied each of the six factors set forth in Paulis v. State Farm Casualty Co., in order to determine if dismissal was appropriate. See 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984). Judge Arpert ultimately concluded that a balancing of the six Paulis factors warranted dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint.
The Court agrees with Judge Arpert's reasoning and conclusion. Accordingly, for these reasons,
IT IS on this 14 day of May 2015, ORDERED that:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Judge Arpert (ECF No. 29); and
2. Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Source: Leagle
