THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN THOMAS BENJAMIN, : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-1825 Plaintiff, : (JUDGE MARIANI) : (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) V. ’ SCRANTON UC SERVICE CENTER, et al., : Defendants. :

df ORDER AND NOW, THIS Ze ( DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021, upon review of Magistrate Judge William |. Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R) (Doc. 5) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein; 2. Based on

(e)(2) initial screening, Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend pursuant to

(e)(2)(B)(ii);

1 Plaintiff lec! a docurnent responding to thie □□□ on February 22, 2021. (Doc. 6.) The document is postmarked February 16, 2021. (Doc. 6 at2. Therefore, the Court does not corsider the document to be timely filed pursuant to

(b)(1)(B). Moreover, Plaintiff provides no specific objection to the R&R but states generally that the Magistrate Judge was “misleading” his “original case” and used “words and different codes” from those used in Plaintiffs complaint. (Doc. 6 at 1.) Based on the filing date and content, the Court does not construe this document to be timely filed objections. As such, the Court reviews the R&R under the clear error standard rather than the de novo standard warranted when timely and specific objections are filed. See Goney v. Clark,

(3d Cir. 1984).

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE. ee Say dyer Robert D. Mariani United States District Judge