Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BARTELLI v. NAGY

September 27, 2005.

KEITH BARTELLI, Plaintiff,
v.
C/O NAGY and DONALD JONES, Defendants.



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:

[1] On April 26, 2004, plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

  [2] the matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt;

  [3] Bartelli's complaint concerns the defendants' actions while the plaintiff was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas (SCI Dallas), Pennsylvania;

  [4] Bartelli alleges that defendant Nagy filed a false misconduct report against the plaintiff on April 24, 2001, after the plaintiff had filed a grievance against Nagy;

  [5] Bartelli further alleges that Hearing Examiner Donald Jones denied the his requests to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing held on April 26, 2001;*fn1 [6] on October 29, 2004 this court declined to adopt a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that suggested that we dismiss Bartelli's complaint as time-barred and because the plaintiff failed to assert a cognizable claim of retaliation against the defendants;

  [7] the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings on May 25, 2005;

  [8] both parties briefed the motion for summary judgment;

  [9] Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation on September 6, 2005, suggesting that we grant the defendant's motion and dismiss both of Bartelli's claims;

  [10] neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

  IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:

  [11] 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. 1987); [12] having examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, we agree with his recommendation to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment or motion for judgment on the pleadings;

  [13] we concur with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the issues raised in the defendants' motion and find the Magistrate Judge's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.