IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 28, 2010
RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ-PEREZ, PLAINTIFF
MR. CLARK, DEFENDANT
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 28th day of May, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 30), recommending that the above-captioned civil rights complaint be dismissed as time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff Rafael Rodriguez-Perez ("Rodriguez-Perez") alleges that he was assaulted while detained in a federal penitentiary in April 2007, (see id. at 7), that he filed the above-captioned complaint on August 31, 2009, (see Doc. 1), and that the limitations period applicable to a claim arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is two years from the date on which the plaintiff knows or reasonably should know that he has incurred the complained-of injury, see PA. CONS. STAT. § 5524(7); O'Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 127 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Montgomery v. De Simone, 159 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 1998) (quoting Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937 F.2d 899, 919 (3d Cir. 1991)), and it further appearing that Rodriguez-Perez has not filed objections to the magistrate judge's report,*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. 30) is ADOPTED.
2. The amended complaint (Doc. 22) is DISMISSED. Leave to amend is denied as futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
3. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.