Matthew Glen Brill, et al. v. Shawn Croner, et al.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA > O □□ MATTHEW GLEN BRILL, et a/., : a es 8 JG □ Plaintiffs, : 3:25-CV-2393 Loe ! : (JUDGE MARIANI) Oo = v. : (Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom) . : or SHAWN CRONER, ef al., | : □ a.

Defendants. : ORDER AND NOW, THIS Z 5 2 DAY OF MARCH, 2026, upon review of Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl Bloom's Report and Recommendation (“R&R’) (Doc. 8) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.

2. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1 Ifa 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also, Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3. Here, following the issuance of the R&R, Brill filed several documents which arguably attempt to expand the factual allegations . he may believe support his claims in this action (see Docs. 9, 10). Nonetheless, Plaintiffs filings are insufficient to rise to the level of one or more Objections to the R&R. Brill’s filings do not reference the R&R, nor do they set forth any statement or assertion which would alter the correctness of the pending R&R or affect this Court’s review of the R&R. 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.

3. Plaintiffs may file an Amended Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Failure to file an Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of the above-captioned action. : . i Le Robert D>Mariant United States District Judge