Brigman v. Schaum

M.D. Pennsylvania

Brigman v. Schaum

DecidedAugust 26, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-01549

StatusUnknown

This text of Brigman v. Schaum (Brigman v. Schaum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brigman v. Schaum, (M.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

LLOYD JAMES BRIGMAN, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-1549 : Plaintiff : (Judge Conner) : v. : : ADAM SCHAUM, et al., : : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2021, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 39) of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, recommending that the court grant the motion (Doc. 8) to dismiss filed by defendants Magisterial District Judge Robert A. Eckenrode and Common Pleas Judge Amber A. Kraft and dismiss pro se plaintiff Lloyd James Brigman’s complaint against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and the court noting that Brigman has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and further noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should afford “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), in order to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Arbuckle’s recommendation, and concluding further that leave to amend would be futile given the legal, rather than factual, nature of the deficiencies in Brigman’s

claims against these defendants, see Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s report (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED.

2. The motion (Doc. 8) to dismiss is GRANTED.

3. Brigman’s claims against defendants Eckenrode and Kraft are DISMISSED without leave to amend.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

LLOYD JAMES BRIGMAN, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-1549 : Plaintiff : (Judge Conner) : v. : : ADAM SCHAUM, et al., : : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of August, 2021, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 39) of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, recommending that the court grant the motion (Doc. 8) to dismiss filed by defendants Magisterial District Judge Robert A. Eckenrode and Common Pleas Judge Amber A. Kraft and dismiss pro se plaintiff Lloyd James Brigman’s complaint against them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and the court noting that Brigman has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and further noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should afford “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), in order to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Arbuckle’s recommendation, and concluding further that leave to amend would be futile given the legal, rather than factual, nature of the deficiencies in Brigman’s

claims against these defendants, see Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s report (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED.

2. The motion (Doc. 8) to dismiss is GRANTED.

3. Brigman’s claims against defendants Eckenrode and Kraft are DISMISSED without leave to amend.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge Middle District of Pennsylvania

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brigman v. Schaum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brigman-v-schaum-pamd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack