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

JEFFREY D. HILL, No. 4:20-CV-02397

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

LYCOMING COUNTY GOVERNMENT,

Defendant.

ORDER JANUARY 13, 2021 Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 21, 2020, 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 December 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that, inter alia, Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed and leave to amend be denied.

1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). 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. I only note, to buttress Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s detailed report and recommendation, that Plaintiff’s claim under

does not provide a private right of action and also fails for that reason.5

AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s December 23, 2020 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED in full.

3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc.,

(M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson,

, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). 4

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 5 See, e.g., Smalls v. Riviera Towers Corporation,

, 206 (3d Cir. 2019); a. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED.

b. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. c. Leave to amend the complaint is DENIED.

d. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (Doc. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Arbuckle for further proceedings on an appropriate sanction.

BY THE COURT:

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