# Doss v. Bureau of Prisons

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · September 21, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10413676

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 21, 2023
- **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/10413676

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error

## Opinion text

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

DARNELL DOSS, : Civil No. 4:19-cv-1789
:
Plaintiff, :
: (Judge Sylvia H. Rambo)
v. :
:
BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., :
:
Defendants. :

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2023, upon consideration of
Defendants’ second motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiff Darnell Doss’s complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or summary judgment under Rule
56, and Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 75)
recommending that the motion be granted, and noting that Plaintiff has not filed
objections to the report and recommendation and the time for doing so has passed,
and the court having satisfied itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record, 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), IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 75) is ADOPTED;

2) Defendants’ motion (Doc. 58) requesting dismissal and/or summary
judgment as to all remaining claims is GRANTED;
3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case; and

4) The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, as Brown has failed
to demonstrate a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Buck v. Davis, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773-75 (2017);
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10413676. Public record. Not legal advice.