explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed
How later courts described this case
- explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH C. PONDS, No. 4:20-CV-00015
Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)
v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
PA. BOARD OF PROBATION AND
PAROLE,
Defendant.
ORDER
JANUARY 30, 2020
Kenneth C. Ponds filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he raises
claims related to his imprisonment and parole within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.1 On January 7, 2020, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a
Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss Ponds’
complaint without prejudice, as he requests both monetary relief—which is
appropriate in a § 1983 action—and his immediate release from state custody, which
is appropriately sought in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.2 No timely
objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation.
1 Doc. 2.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will
review the recommendation only for clear error.3 Regardless of whether timely
objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in
part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.4 Upon review
of the record, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge
Carlson’s conclusion that the differing forms of relief that Ponds seeks cannot be
contained in a single complaint. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 8) is ADOPTED;
2. Ponds’ complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. Ponds may, within 30 days of the date of this Order, file an amended
complaint that clarifies and narrows the type of relief sought. Failure
to file a timely amended complaint will be deemed abandonment of this
action, and this matter may be closed without further warning.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations
regardless of whether objections were filed).
4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.