IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DANNY KEITH MERTSOCK, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-2429

:

Plaintiff : (Chief Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

SHINGLEHOUSE BOROUGH, :

:

Defendant :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of the report 

(Doc. 4) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court 

dismiss the civil rights complaint (Doc. 1) of pro se plaintiff Danny Keith Mertsock 

(“Mertsock”), for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (see Doc. 4), wherein Judge 

Carlson observes that the bulk of Mertsock’s claims are time-barred by the two-year 

statute of limitations governing civil rights claims, (see id. at 7-9), and that Mertsock 

fails to state a claim of institutional liability under Monell v. Department of Social 

Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978), (see id. at 11-16), and it appearing that Mertsock 

did not object to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that

failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in 

forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 

194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), 

but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should “afford some level of 

Case 4:15-cv-02429-CCC Document 5 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 2
review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; 

see also Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) 

(citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. 

Pa. 2010)), to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent 

review of the record, the court in agreement with Judge Carlson that, to the extent 

Mertsock’s civil rights claims predate the filing of his complaint by more than two 

years, those claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that Mertsock’s 

complaint otherwise fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and 

concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby 

ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 4) of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2. Mertsock’s complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. Mertsock is granted leave to amend his pleading within twenty (20) 

days of the date of this order, consistent with paragraph 2 above and 

the report (Doc. 4) of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson. Any amended 

pleading filed pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed to the same 

docket number as the instant action, shall be titled “First Amended 

Complaint,” and shall be complete in all respects. It shall be a new 

pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint under the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, without reference to the complaint 

(Doc. 1) hereinabove dismissed.

4. In the absence of a timely filed amended complaint, the Clerk of Court 

shall close this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 4:15-cv-02429-CCC Document 5 Filed 01/14/16 Page 2 of 2