Opinion
Civil No. 1:09-CV-845
02-03-2012
DAWN MARIE BALL, Plaintiff v. JEFFERY BEARD, et al., Defendants
(Chief Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
ORDER
NOW, on this 3rd day of February 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT upon a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Carlson's October 17, 2011 Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 56) and Plaintiff Dawn Marie Ball's objections thereto (Doc. Nos. 58, 59), the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 56) is ADOPTED and Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 46) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to close the case.
The objections relate solely to the Court's order referring this matter to Magistrate Carlson without Plaintiff's consent. As has been noted by both this Court and Magistrate Judge Carlson, the Federal Magistrates Act grants the Court the authority to refer matters to a magistrate judge without the consent of the parties including pretrial matters, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), as well as dispositive motions, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). See, e.g., Beazer E., Inc. v. Mead Corp., 412 F.3d 429, 438 (3d Cir. 2005) ("The Magistrates Act authorizes district courts to appoint magistrate judges to consider pretrial matters without regard to the parties' consent."); In re U.S. Healthcare, 159 F.3d 142, 145 (3d Cir. 1998) (noting district courts may refer dispositive motions to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation without a party's consent).
_______________
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania