# Brown v. Lebanon County Prison

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · October 19, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410851

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 19, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410851

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANGELO BROWN, No. 4:21-CV-1432

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

LEBANON COUNTY PRISON,

Defendant.

ORDER
OCTOBER 19, 2021
Plaintiff filed the instant action on August 18, 2021, 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 August 24, 2021, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom this
matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice.3

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
2 Id. § 636(b)(1).
No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. 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.”4 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.5
Because this discussion is intended solely for the parties, the Court will not
restate the facts, but will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the

magistrate judge. The Court has conducted a de novo review here and has found
no error.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation, Doc. 6, is
ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. If desired, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint on or before
November 16, 2021. If no amended complaint is timely filed, the
Court will close this case.

4 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)).
4. If Plaintiff desires to proceed in forma pauperis, he must comply with
this Court’s August 18, 2021 Order, Doc. 5, explaining how to apply
for in forma pauperis status. Otherwise, he must submit the filing fee
in the full amount of $402.00 to the Clerk of Court.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410851. Public record. Not legal advice.