AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2009, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 15) of the magistrate judge, recommending that defendants' motion (Doc. 6) to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the complaint in the above-captioned matter requests relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourteenth Amendment violations, First Amendment retaliation, an unconstitutional search and seizure, and municipal liability arising pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), (see Doc. 1; see also Doc. 15), that the magistrate judge's report recommends dismissal of plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment and Monell claims, (see Doc. 15 at 14, 17), as well as those claims based upon events that occurred on or before April 7, 2007, (see id. at 11-12), that neither party has objected to this recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn1 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
a. The motion (Doc. 6) is GRANTED with respect to plaintiffs' claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiffs' municipal liability claims, and any claims based upon events preceding April 8, 2007. Plaintiffs may petition for leave to amend in accordance with the order of court (Doc. 18) dated August 21, 2009.