Pew v. Wetzel
Pew v. Wetzel
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALFONSO PERCY PEW, No. 1:20-CV-00668
Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)
v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER JANUARY 21, 2022 Alfonso Percy Pew filed an amended
42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint alleging that numerous individuals violated his rights.1 In October 2021, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant Defendants’ motions to terminate Pew’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis, and to dismiss for failure to state a claim.2 Magistrate Judge Carlson reached this recommendation after determining that Pew’s amended complaint failed to assert imminent harm and that, in any event, the claims failed as a matter of law.3 After receiving an extension of time, Pew filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.4
1 Docs. 61, 72. 2 Doc. 91. 3
Id.“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”5 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.6 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Magistrate
Judge Carlson’s recommendation that Defendants’ motions be granted and Pew’s amended complaint be dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 91) is ADOPTED; 2. Defendants’ motions to revoke authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 74) and to dismiss (Doc. 76) are GRANTED;
3. Pew’s amended complaint (Docs. 61, 72) is DISMISSED; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge
5 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch,
866 F.3d 93, 99(3d Cir. 2017) (quoting
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
Reference
- Status
- Unknown