The opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARTIN REHAL, ft
Plaintiff, FILED
v. 1 3:22-CV-75 SCRANTON
: (JUDGE MARIANI) APR 94 202
HAZLETON CITY POLICE, et al., : #022
PER
Defendants. : ee
ORDER
AND NOW, THIS _- / $7 DAY OF APRIL, 2022, upon review of Magistrate Judge
Martin Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 6) for clear error or manifest
injustice,' IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the “mee ion.
WM thie,
Rébert D-.Mariani
. wo nited States District Judge
' Plaintiff mailed the Court an email that he sent to “martin792@verizon.net” on January 26, 2022
(see Doc. 7) wherein he states thathe “would have to object based on the fact that the department of
Justice is still investigating my allegations. ..” Plaintiff's email is insufficient to rise to the level of an
Objection to the R&R. If a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while
Plaintiff's email-letter was timely filed, he has only made a generalized objection to the entire R&R and has
failed to identify any specific portions of the R&R or proposed findings to which he objects. The Court thus
need not engage in a de novo analysis. Nonetheless, upon review of the relevant documents, even if this
Court applied a de novo review, the result would be the same.