The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On April 16, 2003, Plaintiff, Roy Schofield ("Plaintiff"), formerly an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy ("SCI-Mahanoy") filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Rec. Doc. 1). The Plaintiff was released from prison in April, 2005.
On December 7, 2005, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 94) be granted and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report were due on December 23, 2005 and to date none have been filed. This matter is now ripe for disposition.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In his second amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that while he was previously incarcerated at SCI-Chester, he suffered an ear infection and lost hearing in his right ear. Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2002, while incarcerated at SCI-Mahanoy, he signed up for a sick call due to blood coming out of his ear. He was examined by Defendant Dr. Ciaglia, and was prescribed seven days of medication and referred for a hearing test. Plaintiff states that Defendant Dr. Ciaglia told him that he had a hole in his ear drum and that nothing could be done for it. Plaintiff signed up for sick call on September 9 and 11, 2002 because his ear infection was not improving. On September 15, 2002, Plaintiff was given a hearing test in his right ear, which he failed.
Plaintiff alleges that he requested on several occasions to see a hearing specialist but that his requests were denied. Plaintiff also alleges that his ear infection continued and that the treatment prescribed by Defendant Drs. Ciaglia and Modery were not effective.
On October 22, 2002, Plaintiff states that he filed a grievance, claiming denial of medical treatment, and he was subsequently told by a prison nurse to continue to come to sick call if he had any problems.
Plaintiff filed this §1983 action on April 16, 2003, alleging that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Originally, this action was against five defendants, however presently only Drs. Ciaglia and Modery remain as defendants in the action.
On November 10, 2004, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation, subsequently adopted by this Court, that denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. (Rec. Docs. 51 and 56). After a discovery period, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. To date, Plaintiff has neither filed his brief in opposition to the Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion, nor has he requested an extension of time within which to do so.
When no objections are made to a magistrate's report, the district court is not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge's report before accepting it. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). According to the Third Circuit, however, "the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). ...