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

MICHAEL KOCH, No. 4:19-CV-00361

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

THE LAW FIRM OF SCHEMERY ZICOLELLO, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 Michael Koch filed this

complaint alleging that numerous individuals violated his civil rights.1 On September 24, 2019, Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick granted Koch’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but found the complaint deficient in several respects and ordered that he file an amended complaint within 30 days.2 More than thirty days elapsed and Koch did not file an amended complaint. Consequently, on August 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss Koch’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and close this case.3 No timely objections were filed to this recommendation.

1 Doc. 1. 2 Doc. 12. Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.4 Regardless of whether timely

objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.5 Upon review of the record, the Court finds no clear error, clear or otherwise, in Magistrate Judge

Mehalchick’s recommendation. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED; 2. Koch’s complaint 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

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

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.