IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 27, 2010
ANASTASIOS (TOMMY) KALOMIRIS, PLAINTIFF
GEORGE WARDEN, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 27th day of April, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 99), recommending that defendant's motion (Doc. 92) for summary judgment be granted, and further recommending that defendant's motion (Doc. 87) for sanctions be denied as moot, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that the amended complaint in the above-captioned matter alleges that defendant, the Prothonotary and Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Pennsylvania, "[f]ailed to take any complaints" from plaintiff, (Doc. 56 at 10), and the court noting that the magistrate judge finds that plaintiff "does not demonstrate... that he would be able to prove the claim[,]" (Doc. 99 at 10), and that the magistrate judge concludes that "defendant has established entitlement to summary judgment in his favor and against the plaintiff because... there is not a dispute as to a material issue of fact and defendant Warden is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law[,]" (id. at 11), See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) ("The judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."), and it further appearing 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:
1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 99) is ADOPTED.
2. The motion (Doc. 92) for summary judgment is GRANTED. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c).
3. The motion (Doc. 87) for sanctions is DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on all claims.
5. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge