ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, District Judge.
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James E. Seibert [Doc. 9]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Seibert for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Seibert filed his R&R on May 24, 2017, wherein he recommends this Court dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that staff at USP Hazelton shipped some of his personal belongings to the wrong address and they were lost [Doc. 5]. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for his lost property pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.
The FTCA "permits the United States to be held liable in tort in the same respect as a private person would be liable under the law of the place where the act occurred."
In a strikingly similar case, Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. dismissed an FTCA claim against the United States where the plaintiff, a prisoner at USP Hazelton, alleged that he too lost personal property because a correctional officer failed to secure the same in his cell after escorting him to the CO's office.
The plaintiff's Objections [Doc. 11] are simply a brief rehashing of the above and do not specifically object to any factual or legal findings or conclusions in the R&R. He simply asserts again that prison staff mailed his belongings to the wrong address, he would like counsel appointed, and that he requests reimbursement for his lost property.
The law is clear, however, that this Court lacks jurisdiction and plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the plaintiff's Objections [Doc. 11] are
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the
It is so
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.