The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-01763
v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)
VANESSA E. BOGAN,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Robert W. Johnson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action on
October 16, 2024, by filing a complaint against Vanessa E. Bogan (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1).
On December 13, 2024, Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl F. Bloom issued a Report and
Recommendation (“the Report”) recommending that this matter be consolidated with Civil
No. 3:24-CV-01898 and that the matter be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of New York (Doc. 7). No objections have been filed to the Report and
the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court will ADOPT the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of
review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on
the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v.
Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)). For those sections of the report and recommendation to
which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b).
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in Judge Bloom’s Report and finds no clear
error on the face of the record. (Doc. 7). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT the Report of Judge Bloom (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the
decision of the Court. This matter is to be CONSOLIDATED with the matter docketed at
Civ. No. 3:24-CV-01898 and TRANFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York. (Doc. 7).
BY THE COURT:
Date: January 13, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge