Urgent v. Urgent (c)TM ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENNIS URGENT, No. 4:19-CV-01348 Plaintiff, (Judge Brann) v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab) DENNIS URGENT(c)TM®, et al., Defendants. ORDER DECEMBER 10, 2020 Plaintiff, challenging the criminal proceedings against him, filed the instant action.1 The case was jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”2 Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.3 On June 18, 2020, Chief Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation. Chief 1 Doc. 1. 2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended that Plaintiff’s civil claims be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous.4 However, she also recommended that Plaintiff be given leave to amend his habeas petition.5 This Court adopted this recommendation, and Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab set the deadline for Plaintiff to file his amended petition on October 1, 2020.6 Plaintiff failed to amend his petition before October 1, 2020, so Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended on October 19, 2020 that all claims be dismissed.7 No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. For portions 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.”8 Regardless of whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.9 4 Doc. 22 at 25-26. 5 Id. 6 Doc. 26 at 2. 7 Id. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have conducted a de novo review here and found no error. AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Susan Schwab’s October 19, 2020 Report and Recommendation, Doc. 26, is ADOPTED in full. 2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file. BY THE COURT: s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge