THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARTIN REHAL, ft Plaintiff, FILED v. 1 3:22-CV-75 SCRANTON : (JUDGE MARIANI) APR 94 202 HAZLETON CITY POLICE, et al., : #022 PER Defendants. : ee ORDER AND NOW, THIS _- / $7 DAY OF APRIL, 2022, upon review of Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 6) for clear error or manifest injustice,' IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the “mee ion.

WM thie, Rébert D-.Mariani . wo nited States District Judge

' Plaintiff mailed the Court an email that he sent to “[email protected]” on January 26, 2022 (see Doc. 7) wherein he states thathe “would have to object based on the fact that the department of Justice is still investigating my allegations. ..” Plaintiff's email is insufficient to rise to the level of an Objection to the R&R. If a party timely and properly files a written objection to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the District Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue,

(3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, while Plaintiff's email-letter was timely filed, he has only made a generalized objection to the entire R&R and has failed to identify any specific portions of the R&R or proposed findings to which he objects. The Court thus need not engage in a de novo analysis. Nonetheless, upon review of the relevant documents, even if this Court applied a de novo review, the result would be the same.