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

GEORGE WHALEY, JR., No. 4:20-CV-01681

Plaintiff, (Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER MARCH 9, 2021 Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 16, 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 February 1, 2021 Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that the complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.3

1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). 2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). 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.”4 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.5 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. Furthermore, after the Report and Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a letter informing the Court that the “case has been settled as the judgment against [Plaintiff] has been vacated.”6

AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED in full.

2. The complaint is dismissed.

4 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,

(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). 5

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

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