CHATMAN v. LOCKE

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00235
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

DAJUNT CHATMAN, a/k/a DAJUNT ) PORTER, LASHAN BRYANT, and PAIGE ) CHATMAN, ) No. 2:24-cv-235 )

) Plaintiffs, ) District Judge Robert J. Colville

) v. ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

DETECTIVE NORMAN LOCKE, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER OF COURT Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) filed by the Honorable Maureen P. Kelly in the above-captioned matter. Judge Kelly’s May 5, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court dismiss this action, without prejudice, based on Plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by May 22, 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)). Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. 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 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. It is hereby further ORDERED that this action is dismissed, without prejudice, to Plaintiffs pursuing their claims via the filing of a new lawsuit in an appropriate forum to the extent their claims are not time-barred. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

DATED: July 16, 2025

cc: The Honorable Maureen P. Kelly U.S. Magistrate Judge

All counsel of record

DaJunt Porter 904DQ SCI-Forest PO Box 307 286 Woodland Drive Marienville, PA 16239

Lashan Bryant 19928 Houghton Street Detroit, MI 48219

Paige Chatman 19928 Houghton Street Detroit, MI 48219