The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MELODY ELLBERGER and No. 3:19-CV-00726
DANIEL LEEPER,
(Judge Brann)
Plaintiffs,
(Magistrate Judge Saporito)
v.
PIERRE GUICHARDAN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
AUGUST 12, 2019
Plaintiff filed the instant action on April 29, 2019, and it was jointly
assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. Upon designation, a
magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . .
submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”1
Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the
case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.2
On June 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., to whom this
matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
recommending that that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Protective Order be
denied.
Plaintiffs’ filed objections to the report and recommendation on June 26,
2019. When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de novo
review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.3 Although the
standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the
discretion of the District Court, and the Court may otherwise rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent that it deems proper.4 For
portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the
Court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”5 Regardless of
whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not
accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.6
3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).
4 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
5 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir.1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).
6 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will
instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have
conducted a de novo review here and found no error.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s June 18, 2019 Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 45, is ADOPTED in full.
2. The Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Protective Order, June 17,
2019, ECF No. 41 is DENIED.
3. The action is remanded to Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge