Filed: Aug. 27, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge. This case was commenced on December 17, 2012, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Upon Plaintiff's compliance with the statutory requirements, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on January 8, 2013. (ECF Nos. 1 and 6.) Defendants filed a motion
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge. This case was commenced on December 17, 2012, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(l), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Upon Plaintiff's compliance with the statutory requirements, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on January 8, 2013. (ECF Nos. 1 and 6.) Defendants filed a motion t..
More
MEMORANDUM ORDER
DAVID STEWART CERCONE, District Judge.
This case was commenced on December 17, 2012, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Upon Plaintiff's compliance with the statutory requirements, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on January 8, 2013. (ECF Nos. 1 and 6.)
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) arguing that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion, despite being granted two extensions of time in which to do so. In the absence of any timely response by Plaintiff, the magistrate judge deemed the motion to dismiss to be ripe for disposition and analyzed the Complaint on the merits. Ray v. Reed, 240 F. App'x 455, 456 (3d Cir. 2007).
On July 31, 2014, Magistrate Judge Eddy filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and was advised that he had until August 18, 2014, to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation.1 Plaintiff has not filed any objections nor has he sought an extension of time in which to do so.
After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order isentered:
AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2014:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) ts GRANTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29) dated July 31, 2014, is ADOPTED as the Opinion ofthe Court;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED; and
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
