ORDER

JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge.

AND NOW, to wit, this 24th day of September 2019, we have before us for disposition Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito's report and recommendation (Doc. 67), which proposes: (1) defendant Lieutenant Seeba's motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) be granted; (2) plaintiff's Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") claim seeking declaratory relief against the United States be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; (3) plaintiff's FTCA claim seeking damages against the United States, Bivens claim, and state law assault and battery claims against the individual defendants be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and (4) defendants Lieutenant Bidelspach, Officer Beaver, Officer Brininger, Officer Manning, Officer Missigman, Paramedic Barth, Paramedic Potter, and the United States of America's ("Federal Defendants") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) be dismissed as moot.

No objection; to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time for such filing has passed. Therefore, in deciding whether to adopt the report and recommendation, we must determine if a review of the record evidences plain error or mani est injustice. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(B) 1983 Advisory Committee Notes ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation"); see also 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1); Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1085 (3d Cir. 1983).

After a careful review, we find neither a clear error on the face of the record nor a manifest injustice. Additionally, we deem defendant Lieutenant Seeba's motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) unopposed1 as the plaintiff failed to file a brief in opposition, despite being granted multiple extensions of time, and therefore, we shall adopt the report and recommendation. It is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1) The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 67) is ADOPTED;

2) The defendant Lieutenant Seeba's motion to dismiss (Doc. 33) is GRANTED;

3) Plaintiff's FTCA claim seeking declaratory relief against the United States is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction;

4) Plaintiff's FTCA claim seeking damages against the United States, Bivens claim, and state law assault and battery claims against the individual defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted;

3) Federal Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 20) is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and

3) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.