Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miguel A. Davila v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

February 6, 2013

MIGUEL A. DAVILA, PLAINTIFF
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Malachy E. Mannion United States District Judge

(MANNION, D.J.)*fn1

(SCHWAB, M.J.)*fn2

MEMORANDUM*fn3

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Judge Martin C. Carlson, (Doc. No. 65), recommending that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, (Doc. No. 54), be denied. After review of the report and recommendation as well as the objections raised by the plaintiff, (Doc. No. 70), the court will adopt the report and recommendation without modification and deny the plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2011, the plaintiff commenced the instant action by filing a complaint, (Doc. No. 1), which he subsequently amended on July 14, 2011, (Doc. No. 6). The plaintiff named twenty-nine institutional and individual defendants and alleged numerous violations of constitutional and other federally protected rights related to his criminal proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.

On July 20, 2011, Judge Smyser issued a report and recommendation, (Doc. No. 8), pursuant to his preliminary consideration of the case, which recommended that the court dismiss the plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. §§1983 and 1985(3) claims against all defendants as well as his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Rehabilitation Act against certain defendants. On July 28, 2011, the plaintiff filed objections, (Doc. No. 10), which he supplemented on July, 29, 2011, (Doc. No. 11).

On February 8, 2012, Judge Caputo adopted the report and recommendation in part. (Docs. No. 33, 34). Judge Caputo dismissed the §1983 and §1985(3) claims against all defendants and dismissed the ADA claims and Rehabilitation Act against defendants Lawler, Barrasse and the Lackawanna County Adult Probation Office. All other claims were permitted to proceed.*fn4

On July 17, 2012, five months after Judge Caputo's ruling, the plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider and brief in support. (Docs. No. 54, 55).

On September 25, 2012, Judge Carlson issued the instant report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 65). Judge Carlson recommended that the motion be denied both because it was not timely filed and because it failed to meet the high legal standard required for motions to reconsider.

On October 1, 2012, the plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. No. 70). The plaintiff raises four distinct challenges to Judge Carlson's report: (1) that he was not afforded adequate consideration as a pro se plaintiff; (2) that his untimely filing should not bar his motion; (3) that he has met the pleading standard for a motion for reconsideration, and: (4) the claims against the Lackawanna County Adult Probation Office should not have been dismissed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of the report to which objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (2011). Although the standard is de novo, the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. See Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "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 Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.