explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error
How later courts described this case
- explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK JAMES CAPOZZI, SR, : Civil No. 3:17-cv-2102
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD :
PROBATION & PAROLE, et al., :
:
Defendants. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
O R D E R
Before the court is a report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick (Doc. 21) in which she recommends that the court close this case for
failure to file an amended complaint.
In considering whether to adopt a report and recommendation when no
objections have been filed, 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)
(explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for
clear error). Following an independent review of the record, the court is satisfied
that the report and recommendation contains no clear error and will therefore adopt
the recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1) The report and recommendation is ADOPTED;
2) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: June 9, 2020