The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
DANA FREDRICK BROWN, JR., )
) No. 2:23-cv-1030
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville
)
COMMONWEALTH OF ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
PENNSYLVANIA, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________________________________________________
)
DANA FREDRICK BROWN, JR., )
) No. 2:23-cv-1031
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville
)
COMMONWEALTH OF ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
PENNSYLVANIA, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER OF COURT
Before the Court are the Honorable Patricia L. Dodge’s October 5, 2023 Report and
Recommendations (ECF No. 5 at Docket No. 23-1030 and ECF No. 6 at Docket No. 23-1031),
each of which addresses Notices (ECF No. 1 at each docket) filed by Petitioner in the above-
captioned matters. Through these Notices, Petitioner purports to remove his state criminal
prosecutions to this District. The Report and Recommendations recommend that the Court issue
an order in each case stating that removal is not permitted and, therefore, the case is closed and
summarily remanded to state court. Objections to Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendations
were due by October 19, 2023. No objections were filed. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for
disposition.
“The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders
on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No.
2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters to
determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive
matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those
portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id.
Following de novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
has explained that, “even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district court
should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has
“described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity
Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson,
812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)).
Upon reasoned consideration of the record in each matter, the Court agrees with the
thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendations,
and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendations in their entirety as
the opinion of the Court in each case. Removal of Petitioner’s state criminal prosecutions to this
District is not permitted. These matters are remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as closed.
BY THE COURT:
s/Robert J. Colville____
Robert J. Colville
United States District Judge
DATED: November 20, 2023
cc: The Honorable Patricia L. Dodge
Dana Fredrick Brown, Jr.
2638 Shadeland Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Dana Fredrick Brown, Jr.
167807
Allegheny County Jail
950 Second Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Allegheny County District Attorney’s Office
Room 303 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219