IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL ROBINSON, No. 4:18-CV-00989 Plaintiff, (Judge Brann) v. (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

GEISINGER HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER OCTOBER3,2019 1. On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants. ECF No

1. 2. On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF No 2. 3. On November 27, 2018, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle issued a screening order instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. ECF

No 7. On February 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No 11. 4. Plaintiff then filed several other “Complaints” and “Supplements” such that the Court and the named Defendants could not ascertain which

document or combination of documents Plaintiff intended to be his Complaint. On June 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle issued an 52. That Order advised Plaintiff that the Third Amended Complaint would completely replace the previously filed complaints and

supplements. Id. 5. On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint. ECF No 59. 6. In an August 7, 2019 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge

Arbuckle recommended that this Court (1) dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint with prejudice and (2) deny all pending motions in this case as moot. ECF No 98. 7. On August 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a document styled as an objection to

the Report and Recommendation. ECF No 103. However, the document did not provide any specific objections. See id. 8. This Court is not required to conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation if no specific objections are made. See Thomas v Duvall,

, at *5 (MD Pa July 10, 2017),

citing Goney v Clark, 749 F2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir 1984) (stating that a court need not conduct a de novo review if objections are not timely or specific because doing so “would undermine the efficiency the magistrate system was meant to contribute to the judicial process”);

FRCP 72(b)(2) (“[A] party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis added). 9. For portions of a report and recommendation to which no proper objection is made, the court should satisfy itself that “there is no clear

error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Thomas,

at *2, quoting FRCP 72 (advisory committee notes). 10. This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and

Recommendation and has determined that there is no clear error on the face of the record. 11. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: a. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation, ECF

No 98, is ADOPTED; b. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, ECF No 59, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; c. All pending motions in this case (ECF Nos 31, 55, 57, 64, 65, 68, 69, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92,

93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101) are DENIED AS MOOT; and d. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge