AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26), recommending that the motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss and/or strike the complaint in part be granted, and recommending that plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") be dismissed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the complaint in the above-captioned matter alleges that defendant's actions constituted unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 951 et seq., and that plaintiff sought, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, and it further appearing that plaintiff concurs with defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike plaintiff's demand for punitive damages under the PHRA, and that the magistrate judge's report recommends that the court find, as a matter of statutory interpretation, that compensatory and punitive damages are not available under the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA, and the court noting that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation,*fn1 and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn2 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:
4. The demands for compensatory and punitive damages which plaintiff brought pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA are STRICKEN from the complaint. Plaintiff shall henceforth be precluded from seeking compensatory or punitive damages pursuant to the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA.