Maldanado v. Ralston

Full title: ALEXIS MALDANADO, Plaintiff, v. G. RALSTON, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 3, 2023

4:22-CV-01890 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 3, 2023)

Opinion

4:22-CV-01890

07-03-2023

ALEXIS MALDANADO, Plaintiff, v. G. RALSTON, et al., Defendants.

Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge

Mehalchick, Chief Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Matthew W. Brann, Chief United States District Judge

In December 2022, Alexis Maldanado filed a fourth amended complaint alleging that officials failed to protect him from obvious harm and retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.¹ On May 9, 2023, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss Maldanado's fourth amended complaint.² Maldanado has not filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.

1 Doc. 224.

2 Doc. 233

Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.³ Conversely, “[i]f a party objects timely to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'”⁴ Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify-in whole or in part-the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations.⁵ Upon review of the record, the Court finds no clear error-clear or otherwise-in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's recommendation that Maldanado's complaint be dismissed. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed).

4 Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 233) is ADOPTED; 2. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. 228) is GRANTED; 3. Maldanado's fourth amended complaint (Doc. 224) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.