McClain v. Kale et al

Filing 115

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Accordingly, this 17th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge 112 , and the objection that was filed, 113 , and upon independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judges report 112 is adopted. 2. Plaintiffs motion 111 to stay is denied. 3. The motion 95 for summary judgment filed by defendants Bath, Corbett, Rothsburn, Wilks, Lt. Bleich, Sgt. Muscial, Michael Klopotoski and Robin Lucas is GRANTED. 4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of defendants Bath, Corbett, Rothsburn, Wilks, Lt. Bleich, Sgt. Muscial, Michael Klopotoski and Robin Lucas and against Plaintiff. 5. This matter is remanded to the magistrate judge for further disposition. See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 9/17/13. (am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RALPH W. MCCLAIN, SR.,
Plaintiff
v.
DR. KALE, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-0035
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER
We are considering the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
recommending that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff has
filed an objection to the report. Since an objection was filed, the court must “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). Plaintiff’s
objection is that Defendants’ motion, and the magistrate judge’s report, concerns an
incident that was not actually complained of, and is therefore not the subject of Plaintiff’s
action. We have reviewed the complaint and record and find Plaintiff’s objection without
merit.
Accordingly, this 17th day of September, 2013, upon consideration of the
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 112), and the objection that
was filed, (Doc. 113), and upon independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s report (Doc. 112) is adopted.
2. Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 111) to stay is denied.

3. The motion (Doc. 95) for summary judgment filed by
defendants Bath, Corbett, Rothsburn, Wilks, Lt. Bleich, Sgt.
Muscial, Michael Klopotoski and Robin Lucas is GRANTED.
4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of
defendants Bath, Corbett, Rothsburn, Wilks, Lt. Bleich, Sgt.
Muscial, Michael Klopotoski and Robin Lucas and against
Plaintiff.
5. This matter is remanded to the magistrate judge for
further disposition.

/s/ William W. Caldwell
William W. Caldwell
United States District Judge

-2-