Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07-CV-1751. Motions Motion for summary judgment : Granted Defendant Acts Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — United States Magistrate Judges — Court Officers And Employees — Jurisdiction, Powers, And Temporary Assignment See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. ANGELA ROBINSON, JOHNNY ROBINSON, JOHNAE ROBINSON, Plaintiffs v. ERIC HICKS, TINA KING, CITY OF HARRISBURG, SHARON BOLOGNESE and CPYSL, Defendants. ORDER CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge AND NOW, this 1st day of February, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William T. Prince (Doc. 80), recommending that the motion for summary judgment of defendants Sharon Bolognese and CPYSL (Doc. 53) and the motion for summary judgment of defendants City of Harrisburg, Eric Hicks and Tina King (Doc. 56) be granted, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiffs filed objections to the report on December 16, 2010 (Doc. 82), and the court finding Judge Prince's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiffs' objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Prince's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Prince (Doc. 80) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. Defendants Sharon Bolognese and CPYSL motion for summary judgment (Doc. 53) is hereby GRANTED in its entirety. 3. Defendants City of Harrisburg, Eric Hicks and Tina King motion for summary judgment (Doc. 56) is hereby GRANTED in its entirety. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of all defendants and against plaintiffs on all claims. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter. 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)).