Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-1074
11-04-2013
LORAYNE E. SOUDERS, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
(Chief Judge Conner)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of the report and recommendation (Doc. 71) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, recommending that defendants' motion (Doc. 31) to dismiss pro se plaintiffs' amended complaint (Doc. 23) be granted, and, after an independent review of the record, and the court noting that plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 72) to the report on October 11, 2013, and the court finding Judge Mehalchick's analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the court further finding plaintiff's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Mehalchick's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires 'written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).
1. The report (Doc. 71) of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick recommending the court grant defendants' motion (Doc. 31) to dismiss the pro se plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 23) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The pro se plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 23) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
_______________
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania