explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error
How later courts described this case
- explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EVAN BROWN, : Civil No. 1:22-cv-1401
:
Plaintiff, :
: (Judge Sylvia H. Rambo)
v. :
:
JORDAN THOMAS, et al., :
:
Defendants. :
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2024, upon consideration of Magistrate
Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) recommending that
Defendants Tingle and Thomas’s motion to dismiss be granted, and noting that the
parties have 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. 29) is ADOPTED;
2) The motion to dismiss (Doc. 27) the complaint is GRANTED;
3) Defendants Thomas and Tingle are terminated from this action; and
4) This matter is remanded to the magistrate judge.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge