AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 27) of the magistrate judge, recommending that defendants' motion (Doc. 8) to dismiss be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff's official capacity claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Lombardo v. Pennsylvania, 540 F.3d 190, 194-95 (3d Cir. 2008); (see also Doc. 27 at 7-9), that plaintiff was not deprived of due process when the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission ("PHRC") denied him an administrative hearing, see Baker v. Pa. Human Relations Comm'n, 489 A.2d 1354, 1358 (Pa. 1985) (explaining that the PHRC retains discretion to grant a full hearing after preliminarily reviewing a complaint); (see also Doc. 27 at 10-14), and that plaintiff's allegations fail to demonstrate differential treatment under the Equal Protection Clause, see Andrews v. City of Phila., 895 F.2d 1469, 1478 (3d Cir. 1990); (see also Doc. 27 at 14-15), and it further appearing that plaintiff has not objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion to dismiss be granted, 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:
1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 27) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. The motion (Doc. 8) to dismiss is GRANTED. All claims against defendants are DISMISSED. Leave to amend is denied as futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).