ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 26th day of November, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 18) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, wherein Judge Carlson recommends that we grant the motion (Doc. 3) by defendant Western Express for a more definite statement as to paragraph 33 of plaintiffs' complaint but deny the motion to the extent it seeks dismissal of Count III and plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages as well as to the extent it seeks a more definite statement as to paragraphs 19, 20, and 23, and it appearing that no party has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party 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 "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), 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 an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: