United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
JOHN DERAFFELE, Plaintiff.
CITY OF WILLIAMSPORT, et al., Defendants.
MATTHEW W. BRANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation
filed by Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III on March
16, 2018. In this Report, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle
recommended that Plaintiff John DeRaffele's Motion to
Seek Court Cost Fees, Secretarial Costs, and Printing Costs
in the Above Action be denied because (1) the Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68 Offer of Judgment included all costs
recoverable by Plaintiff, (2) as a pro se litigant,
he is generally barred from recovering such fees, and (3) he
has offered no evidence demonstrating bad faith by
Defendants. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the
conclusions of the Report and Recommendation, and the matter
has since been fully briefed.
designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings,
including evidentiary hearings, and ... submit to a judge of
the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations.” Once filed, this Report and
Recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who
then have the opportunity to file written
objections. When objections are timely filed, the
District Court must conduct a de novo review of
those portions of the report to which objections are
made.Although the standard of review for
objections is de novo, the extent of review lies
within the discretion of the District Court, and the court
may otherwise rely on the recommendations of the magistrate
judge to the extent it deems proper. For portions of the Report
and Recommendation to which no objection is made, a 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.” Regardless of
whether timely objections are made by a party, the District
Court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
instant matter, I have duly considered Plaintiff's
Objections and provided de novo review to the
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which they
correspond. I find them to be without merit. Magistrate Judge
Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation is well-reasoned,
and correctly notes that pro se litigants are
generally not entitled to recover attorney
fees. I am in further agreement that, in the
absence of evidence of bad faith by the Defendants, the plain
language of the Offer of Judgment, which includes all costs
recoverable to Plaintiff, controls.
NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY
Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, III's Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 100) is ADOPTED in
its entirety; and
Pro se Plaintiff John DeRaffele's Motion to Seek
Court Cost Fees, Secretarial Costs, and Printing Costs in the
Above Action (ECF No. 95) is DENIED.
 ECF No. 100.
 See M.D.Pa. LR 72.3; M.D.Pa.
LR 72.2 (setting forth the briefing schedule for Objections
to Reports and Recommendation).
 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).