KELLY v. LEBANON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 1:11-CV-1294. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120307c89
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 05, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2012
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 19), recommending that plaintiff's motion for leave to further proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that the
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 19), recommending that plaintiff's motion for leave to further proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that ther..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 19), recommending that plaintiff's motion for leave to further proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 19) are ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's motion for leave to further proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's in forma pauperis complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
FootNotes
1. When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts 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 advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that "the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court"); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.Supp.2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court's review is conducted under the "plain error" standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F.Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court's review is limited to ascertaining whether there is "clear error on the face of the record"); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F.Supp.2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for "clear error"). The court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.
Source: Leagle
