Johnson v. McGinley

Opinion

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

ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON, No. 4:18-CV-01714

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

SUPERINTENDENT MCGINLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER APRIL 28, 2022 Armoni Masud Johnson, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this civil rights complaint, which he later amended, alleging that numerous defendants violated his constitutional rights during his incarceration.1 In March 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Johnson’s pending fraud claim motion, omnibus rule 60(b) motion, and omnibus motion to compel justice.2 Johnson filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.3 “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

1 Docs. 1, 24, 34. 2 Doc. 95. or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”4 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject,

or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.5 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s recommendations. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 95) is ADOPTED; 2. Johnson’s fraud claim motion (Doc. 80), omnibus rule 60(b) motion

(Doc. 82), and omnibus motion to compel justice (Doc. 93) are DENIED; and 3. This matter is REMANDED to Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for

further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

4 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).