The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Thomas M. Blewitt
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 4), filed on
August 31, 2011, which recommends that this action be dismissed
without prejudiced based on Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust
administrative remedies.*fn1 Plaintiff has not filed
objections to the R&R and the time to do so has lapsed.*fn2
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the
When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the Third Circuit, however, "the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). "[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating "the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court"); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court's examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge's determinations.
Pro se Plaintiff Simone Brooks filed this action on August 22, 2011 against the Central Dauphin School District ("CDSD"). While Plaintiff set forth her claim on a civil rights complaint form provided by the Court, the relief sought therein is "an expedited order for my children to start school in Central Dauphin School District for as long as my mother, Rita Brooks, owns the land that my children are [heirs] too [sic]." Central Dauphin is the appropriate school district at this time. (Doc. 1, p. 2).*fn3 Thus, although it is less than clear, the Plaintiff's complaint seems to assert claims pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., and the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommends be granted.
Based on the recommendation that the in forma pauperis motion be granted, the Magistrate Judge screens the Plaintiffs' pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Magistrate Judge Blewitt aptly notes that the exhaustion requirement of the IDEA is jurisdictional, and moreover, Plaintiff has evidently failed to exhaust any administrative remedies. Thus, Magistrate Judge Blewitt recommends dismissal of the action with out prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
As we have already mentioned, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to this R&R. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that led the Magistrate Judge to the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in its entirety. With a mind towards conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to this document, as it ...