# MCSHANE v. IRS COUNTY TAXING BOARD

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · November 23, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410992

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 23, 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/10410992

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

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

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MATTHEW MCSHANE, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-990

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

IRS TAXING BOARD, et al., :

Defendants :

O R D E R

Pending before the court is the report of United States Magistrate
Judge Susan E. Schwab1, which recommends that the instant action be
dismissed for the plaintiff’s failure to either pay the proper filing fee or file an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12). The plaintiff has filed a
document referencing the report and recommendation (Doc. 13). In the
document, he acknowledges receiving Judge Schwab’s order directing him
to either pay the proper filing fee or submit the appropriate application.
However, the plaintiff fails to provide a cogent reason for failing to follow the

1 Plaintiff inappropriately refers to Judge Schwab as “Susan” in his filings.
He is advised, in any future filings, to refer to Judge Schwab by her
professional position as “Judge Schwab.”
directives of the court or to raise any specific objection to the report and
recommendation.

Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, Asatisfy 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);

Local Rule 72.31.
Although acknowledging receipt of the court’s order directing him to
either pay the filing fee or file the appropriate application, the plaintiff has
failed to do either. Further, the plaintiff has provided no rational explanation

for his failure to do so and has raised no valid objection to the report and
recommendation. The court has considered the findings in Judge Schwab’s
report and recommendation and finds no clear error of law. Moreover, the

court agrees with the sound reasoning which has led Judge Schwab to the
conclusions in her report. As such, the report and recommendation will be
adopted in its entirety as the opinion of the court.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The report and recommendation of Judge Schwab (Doc. 12) is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS THE RULING OF THE COURT.
(2) The instant action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the
plaintiff’s failure to pay the proper filing fee or submit the appropriate
application to proceed in forma pauperis.

(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge

DATE: November 23, 2021
21-990-01

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10410992. Public record. Not legal advice.