Woodward v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Woodward v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Trial Court Opinion

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

TANEL WOODWARD, : Civil No. 1:19-cv-2048 : Plaintiff, : : (Judge Sylvia H. Rambo) v. : : ADAM SABO, et al., : : Defendants. :

O R D E R Before the court is a report and recommendation (Doc. 47) of the magistrate judge that recommends granting summary judgment in favor of the only remaining defendant in this case, Adam Sobo. Objections to the report and recommendation were due on January 21, 2022, and to date, no objections have been filed. In considering whether to adopt a report and recommendation when no objections have been filed, 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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc.,

702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469

(M.D. Pa. 2010) (explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error). Following an independent review of the record and upon a careful review of the report and recommendation, the court is satisfied that the report and recommendation contains no clear error and will therefore adopt the recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1) The report and recommendation is ADOPTED;

2) Defendant Soto’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 33), which the court treated as a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED;

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case; and

4) Any appeal taken from this order is deemed frivolous and not in good faith.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

Dated: March 2, 2022

Reference

Status
Unknown