Case No. 3:16-cv-253-KRG-KAP
Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff's Requests/Applications for Rehearing En Banc, ECF nos. 122 and 123, and Plaintiff's Motion for 60(b)(3) Relief, ECF no. 124, should be denied.
On August 28, 2019, this Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint with prejudice except as to a claim against Lieutenant Bearjar, which was dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 20 without prejudice to plaintiff bringing the claim in another suit. ECF no. 115. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal docketed at No. 19-3105 in the Court of Appeals and the appeal is currently pending. Plaintiff thereafter filed the three motions pending in this court.
The first two motions are essentially identical. Plaintiff seeks a hearing en banc, which is a procedure available in appellate courts and in the Commonwealth's Courts of Common Pleas, but which is not available in a federal district court.
In his Rule 60(b)(3) motion, plaintiff alleges that I committed fraud on the court because in my Report and Recommendation I "misrepresented" the contents of plaintiff's complaint. See ECF no. 124 at ¶4. Correction of a Magistrate Judge's errors is the function of de novo review after objections are filed to a Report and Recommendation. A Rule 60(b)(3) motion is not a procedure to revisit de novo review, nor is it a parallel form of appellate review.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1), the parties are given notice that they have fourteen days to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. The parties are advised that in the absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted. See EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error). DATE: February 27, 2020
Keith A. Pesto,
United States Magistrate Judge Notice to counsel of record by ECF and by U.S. Mail to:
Bernard Carter Jerry-El AP-3307
S.C.I. Laurel Highlands
5706 Glades Pike
Somerset, PA 15501