IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARK CALLAHAM, :

: 4:06-cv-1109

Plaintiff, :

: Hon. John E. Jones III

v. :

: Hon. Martin C. Carlson

STANELY STANISH, M.D., et al., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM

June 25, 2010

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 68), filed on June 4, 2010,

which recommends that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 61)

be granted and that this case be closed. No objections to the R&R have been filed

by any party.1

 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will adopt the R&R. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report

1

 Objections were due by June 21, 2010.

1

Case 4:06-cv-01109-JEJ-MCC Document 69 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 4
before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the

Third Circuit, however, “the better practice is 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). “[T]he 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

“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); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa.

1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court’s

examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Mark Callaham, proceeding pro se, filed the instant case alleging an

Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs by

the Defendants, prison staff members. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s claim derives out of his

disagreement with a course of treatment he received at the hands of Defendant for a

dermatological condition from which he suffers. 

On September 11, 2009, the Defendants filed a motion for summary

judgment. (Doc. 61). After full briefing on the motion was complete, Magistrate

2

Case 4:06-cv-01109-JEJ-MCC Document 69 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 4
Judge Carlson issued the instant R&R, recommending that the Defendants’ motion

for summary judgment be granted. As noted above, the time for objecting to the

Magistrate Judge’s report has lapsed without a filing from either party. Thus, this

matter is ripe for our disposition.

III. DISCUSSION

Within the R&R, Magistrate Judge Carlson thoroughly reviews the record

and determines that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim should be dismissed

because his claim does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, but merely

represents Plaintiff’s disagreement with Defendants’ chosen course of treatment for

him. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the Defendants’ decision not to provide him

with Retin-A to treat hyper-pigmented scars from which he suffered as a result of

his dermatological condition violated his right to be free from cruel and unusual

punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

As we have already mentioned, neither Defendants nor the Plaintiff have

filed objections to this R&R. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that led

the Magistrate Judge to the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in its

entirety. With a mind towards conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash the

reasoning of the Magistrate Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to this

3

Case 4:06-cv-01109-JEJ-MCC Document 69 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 4
document, as it accurately reflects our consideration and resolution of the case sub

judice. An appropriate Order shall issue.

4

Case 4:06-cv-01109-JEJ-MCC Document 69 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 4