IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 28, 2010
PAUL SURINE, PLAINTIFF
STATE POLICE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM, ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 98) of the magistrate judge, recommending that the pending motion (Doc. 91) for "paperwork and time" be construed as a motion for reconsideration of the order of court (Doc. 89) dated January 14, 2010, wherein the court granted the motion (Doc. 82) for summary judgment filed by defendant Thomas Young, II ("Young"), and further recommending that the motion (Doc. 91) be denied as so construed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff Paul Surine ("Surine") complains that he never received Young's motion for summary judgment and thus was unable to oppose said motion, and that Surine requests time to oppose Young's motion, and it further appearing that neither party has objected to the findings of the magistrate judge's report and 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:
1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 98) is ADOPTED.
2. Surine's motion (Doc. 91) for "paperwork and time" is CONSTRUED as a motion for reconsideration and DENIED as so construed.
3. The case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge