Brandon West v. Superintendent Sawtelle; Attorney General of the State Pennsylvania; and District Attorney of Allegheny County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00913
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRANDON WEST, ) )

) No. 2:25-cv-913 Plaintiff, )

) v. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville

) SUPERINTEDIENT SAWTELLE; ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE PENNSYLVANIA; and DISTRICT ) ) ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER OF COURT Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13) filed by the Honorable Maureen Kelly in the above-captioned matter. Judge Kelly’s August 11, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s two Motions for Default Judgment at ECF Nos. 11 and 12. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 28, 2025. No objections were filed, and the Court considers this matter to be ripe for disposition. “The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters to determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “This standard requires the District Court to review findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)). A district court may only modify or set aside those parts of the order on non-dispositive matters that it finds to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. “A

finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Pennsylvania, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-885, 2007 WL 2253554, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2007) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). “A magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law ‘when the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied the applicable law.’” Brandon v. Burkhart, No. 1:16-cv-177, 2020 WL 85494, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006)). Following de novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge

with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)). Upon reasoned consideration of Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s Motions, and following review of all relevant docket entries, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: The Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court with respect to Petitioner’s Motions. It is hereby further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment at ECF No. 11 is

denied. It is hereby further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Default Judgment at ECF No. 12 is likewise denied.

BY THE COURT:

/s/Robert J. Colville Robert J. Colville United States District Judge

DATED: October 20, 2025

cc:

Brandon West QQ-2829 SCI Albion 10745 Route 18 Albion, PА 16475-0001

All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)