Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Rose v. York County

United States District Court, Third Circuit

October 18, 2013

JIMI ROSE, Plaintiff,
v.
YORK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

JOHN E. JONES, III, District Judge.

AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 14), recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. 13) be denied and the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and, after an independent review of the record, it appearing that Plaintiff's requests for relief are barred by the Younger doctrine and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and noting that Plaintiff has not filed objections and that there is no clear error on the record, [1] 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") and the Court finding Judge Carlson's analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file an Amended Complaint Nunc Pro Tunc (Doc. 13) is DENIED
3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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