Henry James Holmes v. William Willy D. McKain, Director County Manager Office, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01612
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

HENRY JAMES HOLMES, No. 2:22-CV-01612

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)1

v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

WILLIAM WILLY D. MCKAIN, Director County Manager Office, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER NOVEMBER 7, 2025 In 2022 Henry James Holmes filed a complaint alleging that Defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act; that complaint was thereafter dismissed for failure to prosecute.2 Currently pending before the Court is Holmes’ motion to reopen the case, filed nearly two years after the dismissal of his complaint.3 On September 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the motion to reopen.4 No timely objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation.

1 An Article III Judge in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania by designation of Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Doc. 47. 2 Docs. 6, 54. 3 Doc. 55. Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.5 Regardless of whether objections

are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.6 Upon review of the record, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s

conclusion that Holmes has failed to demonstrate that this action should be reopened. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 56) is ADOPTED; and 2. Holmes’ motion to reopen the case (Doc. 55) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge, Specially Presiding

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed). 6 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.