ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 20) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part defendants' partial motion (Doc. 14) to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VIII of the complaint filed by pro se plaintiffs Richelle A. King and Shawn M. King ("the Kings") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and specifically that the court grant defendants' motion to dismiss the Kings' claims in Counts IV and V, respectively, for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL"), but deny the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of the Kings' claim for punitive damages in Count VIII, and it appearing that neither the Kings nor any defendant has objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F.Supp.3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Mehalchick's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: