Black v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOMINIC BLACK, No. 1:20-CV-00938

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

SEPTEMBER 10, 2020

Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 10, 2020 and it was jointly assigned

to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge.1 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.”2 Once filed,

this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then

have the opportunity to file written objections.3

On June 22, 2020, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom this matter

is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending

that the Court grant Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis but also

dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff endeavoring to correct

1 See Verbal Order of June 22, 2020.

2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).

the defects cited in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s report, provided that Plaintiff acts

within 20 days of any dismissal order.

Plaintiff filed timely objections to Magistrate Judge Carlson’s report and

recommendation. 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.4 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.5 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.”6

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.7

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.

4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).

5 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz,

447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

6 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)).

AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s June 22, 2020 Report and

Recommendation, Doc. 11, is ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend, Doc. 21, is DENIED as moot.

4. Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to Plaintiff endeavoring to correct the defects cited in

Magistrate Judge Carlson’s June 22, 2020 Report and

Recommendation, provided that Plaintiff acts within 20 days of this

dismissal Order.

5. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further

proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge