judge’s report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to “afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[wjhen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.Supp.2d 676, 680 (W.D.Pa.2006) (<HOLDING>); Cruz v. Chafer, 990 F.Supp. 375-78
holding that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding prevonn that plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error holding plain error analysis is the proper standard for review of forfeited error in the rule 11 context