CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-517.United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.
November 8, 2010
CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge
AND NOW, this 8th day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 40), recommending that defendant’s motion (Doc. 27) for summary judgment be granted, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,  and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,  see
Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing to 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. 40) is ADOPTED.
2. The motion (Doc. 27) for summary judgment is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on all claims.
5. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.
(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 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.
West Page 725