Bailey v. Jurnak

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEMETRIUS BAILEY, et al., No. 3:18-CV-01437 Plaintiffs, (Judge Brann) v. (Magistrate Judge Mehalchick) LIBRARY ASSISTANT JURNAK, et al., Defendants.

ORDER SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 19, 2019 and it was 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 June 17, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that plaintiff Demetrius Bailey’s motion for entry of judgment be denied, Defendants’ motion to strike be granted to the extent that Bailey’s motion 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). is denied, and Plaintiff Richard Sutton’s three motions seeking to be dismissed from this case and withdrawn as a party be granted.

No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. For portions 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.”3 Regardless of whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.4 Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have conducted a de novo review here and found no error.

AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s June 17, 2020 Report and Recommendation, Doc. 103, is ADOPTED in full.

2. Plaintiff Demetrius Bailey’s motion for entry of judgment, Doc. 53, is DENIED.

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)).

3. Defendants’ motion to strike, Doc. 85, is GRANTED to the extent that Bailey’s motion for entry of judgment is denied.

4. Plaintiff Richard Sutton’s motions to be dismissed as a party, Docs.

75, 91, 100, are GRANTED.

5. Plaintiff Richard Sutton is DEEMED WITHDRAWN from this action and TERMINATED from this action’s docket.

6. This matter is referred back to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge