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

RICKEY JEFFERSON, 2ND, No. 4:19-CV-02130

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

TIM BETTI, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER SEPTEMBER 22, 2021 Plaintiff filed the instant action in December 2019, 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 August 31, 2021, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that the action be dismissed. 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,

1

(b)(1)(B). 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. AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) is

ADOPTED in full. 2. The Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED due to the Plaintiff’s failure to oppose Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33) despite

multiple orders directing him to do so; 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file.

BY THE COURT:

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

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,

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