United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
October 31, 2014
DAVID S. JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
ALLEGHENY COUNTY-CITY OF PITTSBURGH, KATE BARKMAN, HON. KATHLEEN DURKIN, and HON. ROBERT C. MITCHELL, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, & 8
NORA BARRY FISCHER, District Judge.
The Complaint was filed in the above captioned case on July 7, 2014, after Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis was granted. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and Local Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8), filed on October 8, 2014, recommended that the Complaint (ECF No. 3) be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). The Report and Recommendation further recommended that Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (ECF No. 4, ECF No. 5) and Petition for Service by the U.S. Marshal (ECF Nos. 6) be dismissed as moot. Service of the Report and Recommendation was made on Plaintiff at AP-8174, One Rockview Place, Bellefonte, PA 16823. Plaintiff was informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, that he had fourteen (14) days to file any objections. No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation.
After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2014,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Complaint filed by Plaintiff David S. Johnson (ECF No. 3) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motions to Compel (ECF No. 4, ECF No. 5) and Petition for Service by the U.S. Marshal (ECF Nos. 6) are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8) of United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan, dated October 8, 2014, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.