| Iki THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA | LUIS NIEVES, : No. 3:19cv507 | Plaintiff : | : (Judge Munley) . | MARK CAPOZA, e: al., :

| AND NOW, tc wit, this 28" day of October 2019, we have before us for disposition Magistreite Judge William Arbuckle’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 46), which proposes that the plaintiff Luis Nieves’ second amended complaint (Doc. 42) be dismissed. On October 211, 2019, the plaintiff filed a handwritten letter with the court

| that is illegible in pat. (Doc. 47). Liberally construing the legible portions of the | letter, we conclude ihat the plaintiff filed this letter with the intent of filing | objections to Judge Arbuckle’s R&R. In disposing o* objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the repo't against which objections are made.

(b)(1)(c); see also Sullivan v. Cuyler,

(3d Cir. 1983). The court may acce ot, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations rade by the magistrate judge. Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987). The district court judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

| After a careful review of the plaintiff's objections (Doc. 47), we find no specific objection tc any portion of Judge Arbuckle’s R&R. As

(b)(1) requires toth timely and specific objections to an R&R, Goney v. Clark, |

(3d Cir. 1984), it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

| 1) The magistate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 46) is ADOPTED; | 2) The plaintif’s objections (Doc. 47) are OVERRULED; 3) The plaintifl’s second amended complaint (Doc. 42) is DISMISSED | WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and | 4) The Clerk cf Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

BY i Lf AMAL □ ! JUDGE JAMES NI-MUNLE’ United State

2