The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDWIN KOSIK, Senior District Judge
AND NOW, THIS 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 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, against Paul Romanowski,
Wayne Cole, Dan Douglas, and Donald Jones, all staff members at
the State Correctional Institution at Dallas (SCI Dallas),
Pennsylvania;
[2] the matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge
Thomas M. Blewitt;
[3] on October 29, 2004, this court adopted in part a Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed the
claims against defendants Douglas and Cole for failure to state a
cognizable claim;
[4] we further directed that Bartelli's complaint be served
upon defendants Romanowski and Jones; (Doc. 13)
[5] plaintiff's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that
defendant Romanowski filed a misconduct against Bartelli, who was
subsequently adjudged guilty by defendant Jones, and terminated the inmate's employment after the
plaintiff filed a grievance against Romanowski on March 15, 2001;
and, (2) that on March 25, 2001, defendant Romanowski conspired
with other SCI Dallas staff at a support team hearing to prevent
the plaintiff from obtaining any future employment in skill
positions;*fn1
[6] the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and,
alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings, on May 26, 2005;
(Doc. 52)
[7] both parties briefed the motion for summary judgment;
[8] Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation
on September 23, 2005, suggesting that we grant the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings as the plaintiff failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies and because his
claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and further
recommended that we grant the defendants' motion for summary
judgment;
[9] neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant filed objections
to the Report and Recommendation.*fn2 IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:
[10] 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);
[11] having examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, we agree with his recommendation to grant the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and for judgment on the
pleadings;
[12] we concur with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the
issues raised in the defendants' motion and find the Magistrate
Judge's ...