Davis v. Cowden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEVIN DAVIS, No. 3:20-CV-01106 Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann) (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick) v. DARLA COWAN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER FEBRUARY 8, 2023 Kevin Davis, an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, filed a Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights.1 On January 3, 2023, the Honorable Karoline Mehalchick, Chief United States Magistrate Judge of this Court, issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss the complaint, but permit Davis to amend his complaint a third time.2 Davis was permitted to file objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation by January 17, 2023. He did not file any objections.

1 Doc. 51.

Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.3 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.4 Upon review of the record, the Court finds no clear error, clear or otherwise, in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s recommendations. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 65) is ADOPTED; 2. Davis’ Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 51) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Davis may, within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified by Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed).

4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); M.D. Pa. Local R. 72.31.