explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed
How later courts described this case
- explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EVAN BROWN, No. 1:22-CV-01401
Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)
v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
ADRIENNE MONROY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
OCTOBER 29, 2024
Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 8, 2022, and it was eventually
jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. Upon designation, a
magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . .
submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”1
Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case
who then have the opportunity to file written objections.2
On September 30, 2024, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom this
matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that I dismiss Plaintiff’s false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure
to intervene claims but otherwise deny the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants
Adrienne Monroy, Michael Smith, and Arthur Etnoyer, Jr.
1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. Where no
objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the
recommendation only for clear error.3 Regardless of whether timely objections are
made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.4
Because the Court writes solely for the parties, it will not restate the facts, but
will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. The
Court has conducted a de novo review here and found no error.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) is
ADOPTED in full;
2. Defendants Adrienne Monroy’s, Michael Smith’s, and Arthur Etnoyer,
Jr.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is GRANTED IN PART;
a. Plaintiff Evan Brown’s false arrest, false imprisonment, and
failure to intervene claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 41) is OTHERWISE DENIED;
and
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations
regardless of whether objections were filed).
4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
4. This matter is remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge