UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FRANCISZEK BYSTRON, :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-1014

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

ANGELA HOOVER, et al., :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM Presently before the court is the October 15, 2020 Report and Recommendation (“Report”) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, (Doc. 12), which recommends that the complaint of pro se plaintiff Franciszek Bystron be dismissed without prejudice under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.1 The Report finds that despite the court’s orders, plaintiff failed to file a proper complaint stating his specific allegations and claims, and

1It appears that plaintiff, an ICE detainee, seeks injunctive relief regarding the conditions of his confinement due to a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Alirio R.R. v. Correia,

(D. N.J. June 15, 2020) (The Court predicted that “the Third Circuit will find, at minimum, that [civil immigration detainee alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement] can proceed under either Section 2241 or Bivens (for injunctive relief).” “Civil immigration detainees are entitled to the same due process protections as pretrial detainees when the conditions of confinement fall below constitutional minimums.”

at *11 (citing E.D. v. Sharkey,

(3d Cir. 2019)). failed to file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. To date, the defendants have not been served since no proper pleading was filed by the

plaintiff. No objections have been filed to the Report, and the time within which objections were due has expired. For the following reasons, the Report, (Doc. 12), will be ADOPTED and, plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 1), will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW Where no objections are made to a report and recommendation, 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co.

v. Dentsply Intern., Inc.,

(2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every Report and Recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept

or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1); M.D.Pa. Local Rule 72.3.

2Since Judge Carlson stated the full procedural history of this case in his Report, and since the plaintiff did not object to it, the court will not repeat it herein. II. DISCUSSION Judge Carlson analyzes the factors under Poulis v. State Farm Fire

and Cas. Co.,

(3d Cir. 1984), and correctly applies the facts of this case to them, and explains why the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b) due to his failure to prosecute.

Thus, the court will not rehash this thorough explanation in the Report. The court has reviewed the reasons presented by Judge Carlson for recommending that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and because the court agrees with the sound reasoning that led the Judge

to the conclusions in his Report and finds no clear error on the face of the record, the court will adopt the Report in its entirety.

III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, Judge Carlson’s Report, (Doc. 12), will be ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and plaintiff’s complaint, (Doc. 1), will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate order shall follow.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge DATE: November 2, 2020 20-1014-01