Johnson v. Reynolds ( 2019 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HOWARD JOHNSON, No. 4:18-CV-01862 Plaintiff, (Judge Brann) v. (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle) DANIEL REYNOLDS, et al., Defendants. ORDER OCTOBER 30, 2019 Howard Johnson filed this amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that several police officers violated his civil rights when they promised not to prosecute him for criminal conduct if he provided a written confession and permitted police to search his phone, but later filed criminal charges against him anyway.1 On October 9, 2019, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice.2 No timely objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation. 1 Doc. 12. 2 Doc. 15. 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 in Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s conclusion that the complaint is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and is otherwise without merit. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED; 2. Johnson’s amended complaint (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge 3 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); Local Rule 72.31.