MERTSOCK v. SHINGLEHOUSE BOROUGH POLICE ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANNY MERTSOCK, No. 4:20-CV-02208 Plaintiff, (Judge Brann) v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson) SHINGLEHOUSE BOROUGH POLICE, Defendant. ORDER DECEMBER 21, 2020 Plaintiff, awaiting trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, filed the instant action on October 27, 2020.1 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 November 30, 2020, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed 1 Doc. 8 at 1. 2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). with prejudice because it fails to state a claim.4 The complaint “consists of a single-page, one-paragraph pleading that describes [Plaintiff’s] displeasure with the pending case in a fashion that lacks content, context, or factual continuity.”5 As Magistrate Judge Carlson put it, “the plaintiff’s complaint is, on its face, fundamentally flawed in multiple and profound ways that cannot be remedied.”6 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.”7 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.8 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. 4 Doc. 8 at 17-18. 5 Id. at 1. 6 Id. at 17. 7 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)). AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation, Doc. 8, 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