Harris v. Taurasi

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CORNELIUS E. HARRIS, : 1:19-cv-1 : Plaintiff, : v. : Hon. John E. Jones III : LEE ANN TAURASI, et al., : Hon. Karoline Mehalchick : Defendants, : ORDER July 22, 2019 AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) of United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick recommending that this matter be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s orders and noting that Plaintiff has not filed objections1 to the R&R and that there is no clear error on the 1 When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the “plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375 -78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The Court has reviewed record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”) and the Court finding Judge Mehalchick’s analysis of the Poulis factors to be thorough, wellreasoned, and fully supported by the record IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. This matter is DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case. s/ John E. Jones III John E. Jones III United States District Judge the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.