United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Christopher C. Conner,
AND NOW, this 5th day of June,
2015, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 42) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court grant defendants’ motion (Doc. 30) to dismiss plaintiff’s pro se amended complaint (Doc. 7) for failure to prosecute this action, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (permitting court to dismiss lawsuit if “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”), and failure to oppose defendants’ motion, see L.R. 7.6 (“Any party who fails [to timely file a brief in opposition] shall be deemed not to oppose such motion.”), and also on the merits, and following an independent review of the record, the court in agreement with the magistrate judge that plaintiff’s claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and meritless for impermissible reliance on a respondeat superior theory of constitutional liability, (see Doc. 42 at 13-22), and that granting further leave to amend would be futile and result in unjust delay, see
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that district courts must liberally grant leave to amend “unless amendment would be inequitable or futile”), and it appearing that neither party has objected to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,  see
Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that the failure to timely object “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report (Doc. 42) of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.
2. Defendants’ motion (Doc. 30) to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED ...