The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Martin C. Carlson
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 40), filed on February 15, 2012, which recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) be granted and that the complaint be dismissed. Objections to the R&R were due by March 5, 2012 and none have been filed to date. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for our disposition. For the reasons that follow, the R&R will be adopted in its entirety, the Motion to Dismiss shall be granted and this case shall be closed.
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 recommendations." 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 LaRon Philmore ("Plaintiff" or "Philmore") filed this civil rights action on May 2, 2011. On May 24, 2011, we granted Philmore's request to proceed in forma pauperis, however we dismissed his initial pro se complaint, citing deficiencies in the pleading and directed him to file an amended complaint.
(Doc. 16). Philmore filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2011. (Doc. 26). Upon a second screening, we dismissed all of the Defendants named in the amended complaint with one exception, and directed the amended complaint to be served upon Deputy Superintendent Hannah.*fn1
On December 30, 2011, Defendant Hannah moved to dismiss Philmore's amended complaint. (Doc. 33). Philmore did not timely respond to the Motion.*fn2 Philmore was then directed to respond to the Motion by February 3, 2012. That Order stated, in clear and precise terms:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT on or before Friday, February 3, 2012, Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendant Hannah's motion to dismiss should not be granted. Any further failure of Plaintiff to respond in accordance with this order may result in Defendant Hanna's motion to dismiss being granted without further notice. (Doc. 37). Despite this Order, Philmore never responded to the Motion.*fn3 Instead, Philmore simply sent the Court a letter complaining about new matters at SCI-
Graterford, where he was being held. (Doc. 38). Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Carlson issued the instant R&R, recommending that the Motion be granted.
As noted above, Philmore has not filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, this matter ...