explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation
How later courts described this case
- explaining judges should give some review to every report and recommendation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOEL L. BROWN, et al. :
Plaintiffs : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-155
v. : (MANNION, D.J.)
(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)
WAYNE COUNTY :
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.
:
Defendants
:
ORDER
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’s
report and recommendation (“Report”), which recommends that two
plaintiffs, Sheron A. Chambers (“Chambers”) and Dryah K. Brown’s
(“Brown”) claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with
court orders. (Doc. 39). Neither party has filed objections to Judge Arbuckle’s
Report.
When no objections are made to the report and recommendation of a
magistrate judge, 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.” 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 judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. L.R. 72.31.
On April 10, 2019, Judge Arbuckle issued an order directing four of the
five pro se plaintiffs to either pay the required filing fee to file a complaint or
file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by May 10, 2019. (Doc.
14). The two plaintiffs at issue here, Chambers and Brown filed motions for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 18; Doc. 21). Judge Arbuckle
denied both motions because they did not include any information about
either plaintiff’s assets or liabilities. (Doc. 20; Doc. 27). Judge Arbuckle also
provided Chambers and Brown with an application to proceed in forma
pauperis and advised them that their claims may be dismissed if they failed
to submit their application on or before June 6, 2019, and June 14, 2019,
respectively. (Doc. 20; Doc. 27). To date, Chambers and Brown have neither
filed a new motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing
fee.
As such, this court agrees with the sound reasoning that led Judge
Arbuckle to his recommendation that all claims filed by Chambers and Brown
be dismissed without prejudice.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Judge Arbuckle’s Report (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY;
(2) Plaintiffs Sheron A. Chambers and Dryah K. Brown’s claims are
DISMISSED without prejudice;
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE plaintiffs Sheron A.
Chambers and Dryah K. Brown from this case; and
(4) This case is REMANDED to Judge Arbuckle for further
proceedings.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: August 14, 2019
18-155-02