IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHNNIE MICKELL, No. 4:20-CV-00268

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Saporito)

LYCOMING COUNTY CENTRAL COLLECTIONS OFFICE AND ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant.

ORDER APRIL 28, 2020 Johnnie Mickell filed this

civil rights complaint alleging that Defendant violated his rights by seeking to collect a past-due judgment imposed against Mickell by the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County.1 On February 19, 2020, Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court sua sponte dismiss as legally frivolous Mickell’s complaint.2 Mickell belatedly filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 9, 2020.3 Where no timely objection is made to a report and recommendation,

1 Doc. 1. 2 Doc. 6. this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.4 However, “[i]f a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district

court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”5 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.6

Because Mickell’s objections were not timely filed, the Report and Recommendation is properly reviewed only for clear error. However, even reviewing the recommendation de novo, the Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge

Saporito’s conclusion that Mickell’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity.7

4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed). 5 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch,

(3d Cir. 2017) (quoting

(b)(1)). 6

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 7 The Court notes that Mickell has filed an appeal of Magistrate Judge Saporito’s previous Order granting Mickell’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis but withholding service of the complaint pending review of this Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7). Ordinarily, “the filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional significance—it confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” United States v. Santarelli,

(3d Cir. 2019) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). However, “the jurisdiction of the lower court to proceed in a cause is not lost by the taking of an appeal from an order or judgment which is not appealable.” Venen v. Sweet,

(3d Cir. 1985). There appear to be no jurisdictional grounds for Mickell’s appeal of Magistrate Judge Saporito’s prior non-final order, and that appeal therefore does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to consider the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation

(Docs. 6) is ADOPTED; 2. Mickell’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

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