Brigman v. Schaum

Opinion

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

LLOYD JAMES BRIGMAN, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-1302 : Plaintiff : (Judge Conner) : v. : : ADAM SCHAUM, et al., : : Defendants :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 2021, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 10) of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, recommending that the court construe plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and thereafter dismiss the above-captioned case, and the court noting that no party has 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 agreeing with Judge Arbuckle’s analysis and recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle’s report (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED.

2. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 9) is CONSTRUED as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is accordingly DISMISSED.

3. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 6) to dismiss is DENIED as moot.

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

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