ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 21) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that the court (1) conditionally deny defendant's motion (Doc. 12) to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 1) of pro se plaintiff Monica Niculcea ("Niculcea") to the extent the motion seeks dismissal for lack of proper service; (2) hold the motion in abeyance to the extent it seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim; (3) direct the plaintiff to effect service of the complaint forthwith, and (4) remand for further proceedings, (see Doc. 21 at 8-9), and it appearing that Niculcea has not objected to the report,1 see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should afford "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Mehalchick's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: