UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDDIE CURTIS LUCAS, JR.

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-01172

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)

MEJIA FRANCISCO & ERIC PIPENBRINK,

Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Eddie Lee Curtis Lucas (“Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit against Mejia Francisco and Eric Pipenbrink (collectively, “Defendants”) along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on July 1, 2024. (Doc. 1). The case was transferred to this Court from the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 16, 2024. (Doc. 2; Doc. 10, at 1). On August 8, 2024, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). Judge Arbuckle subsequently screened the complaint in accordance with

(e)(2) and issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (Doc. 10). No objections have been filed to the Report. As such, the Court will ADOPT the Report and Recommendation. “A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v. Astrue,

(3d Cir. 2011) (quoting

(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”

(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark,

, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984);

(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.”

(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v.

Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363,

, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v. Raddatz,

(1980)). For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, 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. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b). The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in Judge Arbuckle’s Report and finds no clear error on the face of the record. (Doc. 10). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report of Judge Arbuckle (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED. (Doc. 1).

Clerk shall mark this matter CLOSED.

BY THE COURT: Date: March 10, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick KAROLINE MEHALCHICK United States District Judge