ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 2015, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 43) of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending the court grant the motion (Doc. 18) for judgment on the pleadings filed by defendant Mountainview Thoroughbred Racing Association, d/b/a Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course ("Mountainview"), and dismiss the disability discrimination claims of plaintiff Richard Lechthaler ("Lechthaler") pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 PA. STAT. §§ 951-963, wherein Judge Saporito observes that injunctive relief is the only remedy provided by the ADA, and opines that Lechthaler's ADA claim, seeking only monetary damages, must be dismissed, and further observes that Lechthaler concedes his failure to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with either the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (see Doc. 43 at 7-12), and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Saporito that Lechthaler's ADA and PHRA claims must be dismissed, and the court declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lechthaler's remaining state law negligence claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); see also Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2005), and specifically noting that trial dates and preparation in this matter are suspended pending resolution of the instant motion, and that no judicial resources have yet been expended with regard to the parties' pending pretrial motions, and thus concluding that considerations of "judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants" favor resolution of the remaining state law claim in state court, see Kach, 589 F.3d at 650 (quoting New Rock Asset Partners v. Preferred Equity Advancements, Inc., 101 F.3d 1492, 1507 n.11 (3d Cir. 1996)),1 and it appearing that Lechthaler does not object to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,2 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007), it is hereby ORDERED that: