Njos v. Argueta, 3:12-cv-1038. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20170407d26
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 06, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2017
Summary: ORDER JOHN E. JONES, III , District Judge . AND NOW , upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 255) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that we adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report, which were arrived at by the Magistrate Judge following a full evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and further recommending that judgm
Summary: ORDER JOHN E. JONES, III , District Judge . AND NOW , upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 255) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that we adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report, which were arrived at by the Magistrate Judge following a full evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and further recommending that judgme..
More
ORDER
JOHN E. JONES, III, District Judge.
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 255) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that we adopt the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the report, which were arrived at by the Magistrate Judge following a full evidentiary hearing on the threshold issue of whether the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and further recommending that judgment be granted in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiff on the ground that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and noting that Plaintiff has filed objections (Doc. 261)1, and the Court finding Judge Saporito's analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the Court further finding Plaintiff's objections to be without merit2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito (Doc. 255) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The Court ADOPTS the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth by the Magistrate Judge within the Report and Recommendation.
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, judgment is ENTERED as a matter of law in favor of all remaining Defendants and against Plaintiff, based on our determination that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997E(a).
4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case.
FootNotes
1. Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinksi v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008). Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674-75 (1980); see also Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008).
2. Plaintiff's submission contains no arguments that cause us to depart from the Magistrate Judge's appropriate reasoning and correct conclusions.
Source: Leagle
