Houston v. Department of Justice, 4:18-CV-00387. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190129c82
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2019
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . On February 15, 2018, Ronnie Lee Houston initiated the above-captioned case against the United States Department of Justice. The parties' cross-motions 1 for summary judgment were referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, who issued a Report and Recommendation on November 14, 2018. 2 Mr. Houston's objections to that Report and Recommendations were filed on December 4, 2018. 3 In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson reco
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . On February 15, 2018, Ronnie Lee Houston initiated the above-captioned case against the United States Department of Justice. The parties' cross-motions 1 for summary judgment were referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, who issued a Report and Recommendation on November 14, 2018. 2 Mr. Houston's objections to that Report and Recommendations were filed on December 4, 2018. 3 In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson recom..
More
ORDER
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
On February 15, 2018, Ronnie Lee Houston initiated the above-captioned case against the United States Department of Justice. The parties' cross-motions1 for summary judgment were referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, who issued a Report and Recommendation on November 14, 2018.2 Mr. Houston's objections to that Report and Recommendations were filed on December 4, 2018.3
In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended granting Mr. Houston's motion for summary judgment solely to the extent that it sought a certain 10-page letter report summarizing the results of his court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. In his objections, however, Mr. Houston indicated that he already has possession of this document.
This Court has otherwise conducted a de novo review4 of the objected-to portions of the Report, and agrees with Magistrate Judge Carlson's analysis and conclusions. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, ECF No. 38, is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 21, is DENIED AS MOOT to the extent it seeks a copy of the psychiatric evaluation report, and is otherwise DENIED for the reasons listed in Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation.
3. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.
FootNotes
1. ECF Nos. 21, 24.
2. ECF No. 38.
3. ECF No. 40.
4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("[A]ny party may serve and file written objections to [a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation]. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.")
Source: Leagle
