IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAUL SURINE, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:08-CV-1921

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Conner)

:

v. :

:

STATE POLICE EMERGENCY :

RESPONSE TEAM, et al., :

:

Defendants :

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 98)

of the magistrate judge, recommending that the pending motion (Doc. 91) for

“paperwork and time” be construed as a motion for reconsideration of the order of court

(Doc. 89) dated January 14, 2010, wherein the court granted the motion (Doc. 82) for

summary judgment filed by defendant Thomas Young, II (“Young”), and further

recommending that the motion (Doc. 91) be denied as so construed, and, following an

independent review of the record, it appearing that plaintiff Paul Surine (“Surine”)

complains that he never received Young’s motion for summary judgment and thus was

unable to oppose said motion, and that Surine requests time to oppose Young’s motion,

and it further appearing that neither party has objected to the findings of the magistrate

judge’s report and recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the

Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 100 Filed 06/28/10 Page 1 of 2
 When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and 1

recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to

review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. An, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a

matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some

level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v.

Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen no timely

objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b),

advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “the

failure of a party to object to a magistrate’s legal conclusions may result in the loss

of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d

676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the

“plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding

that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the

face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding

that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The

court has reviewed the remaining findings in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.

record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing to 1

timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in

forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level”), it is hereby ORDERED that: 

1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 98) is ADOPTED.

2. Surine’s motion (Doc. 91) for “paperwork and time” is CONSTRUED as a

motion for reconsideration and DENIED as so construed.

3. The case is REMANDED to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

 S/ Christopher C. Conner 

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01921-CCC Document 100 Filed 06/28/10 Page 2 of 2