United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
September 27, 2005.
KEITH BARTELLI, Plaintiff,
JOHN GALABINSKI, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDWIN KOSIK, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
AND NOW, THIS 27th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2005, IT APPEARING TO
THE COURT THAT:
 On April 26, 2004, plaintiff filed the above-captioned
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
 the matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Blewitt;
 on October 29, 2004 this court adopted in part a Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed defendants
Bleich, Jones, Lewis, Jastremski, Clark, Long, Bowden,
Strachelek, and McGrady, because plaintiff's complaint failed to
state viable claims against them. The court permitted the
plaintiff to pursue his claims against John Galabinski;
 in his complaint, the plaintiff claims that: (1) defendant
Galabinski filed a false misconduct report against the plaintiff
on September 7, 2001, after the plaintiff had filed a grievance
against Galabinski for making, religious, racial, and sexual
remarks and threats; (2) the defendant filed a false misconduct
against the plaintiff on December 10, 2001; and, (3) the
defendant filed a false misconduct report against the plaintiff on February 22, 2002, in retaliation
for a criminal complaint the plaintiff filed against the
 defendant, John Galabinski, filed a motion for summary
judgment or for judgment on the pleadings on May 23, 2005;
 both parties briefed the motion for summary judgment;
 Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation
on August 31, 2005, suggesting that we grant the defendant's
motion and dismiss all three of the plaintiff's claims;
 neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.
IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:
 If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review
of the plaintiff's claims. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985). Nonetheless,
the usual practice of the district court is to give "reasoned
consideration" to a magistrate judge's report prior to adopting
it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3rd Cir.
 having examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, we agree with his recommendation to grant the
defendant's motion for summary judgment or motion for judgment on
the pleadings;  we concur with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the
issues raised in the defendants's motion and find the Magistrate
Judge's review of the record to be comprehensive;
 specifically, we agree with the Magistrate Judge's
conclusion that claims one and two of the plaintiff's complaint
are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations;
 we further agree that claim three of the complaint should
be dismissed as the plaintiff cannot show that defendant
Galabinski was motivated to discipline the plaintiff as a result
of his filing a criminal complaint against defendant Galabinski.
See Carter v. McGrady, 292 F.3d 152, 158 (3d Cir. 2002) (citing
Rauser v. Horn, 241 F.3d 330, 333 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding a
prisoner alleging that prison officials have retaliated against
him for exercising a constitutional right must prove that: 1) the
conduct in which he was engaged was constitutionally protected;
2) he suffered "adverse action" at the hands of prison officials;
and, 3) his constitutionally protected conduct was a substantial
or motivating factor in the decision to discipline him).
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
 the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M.
Blewitt dated August 31, 2005 (Doc. 63) is adopted;
 the defendant's motion for summary judgment or judgment on
the pleadings is granted as to all claims of the plaintiff's
 judgment is entered in favor of defendant, John Galabinski,
and against the plaintiff, Keith Bartelli, on all claims; and,  the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case, and
forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Magistrate
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.