of Review for a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 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)). Where parties have not filed objections to a magistrat ) (<HOLDING>); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F.Supp.2d 397, 399
holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in  10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact holding the appellate standard of review in fourth amendment search and seizure cases is limited to determining whether any evidence supports the trial courts finding and the appellate court may only reverse where there is clear error holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that the courts review is limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error on the face of the record holding without a transcript of proceedings below review on appeal is limited to errors of law that are apparent on face of record