Mitchell v. Hogentogler et al

Filing 35

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 1)MJ Blewitt's 30 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. 2)Pltf's request that this court institute criminal charges aginst dfts is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3)Pltf's clsm under the 14th Amdment are D ISMISSED with prejudice. 4)Pltf's 1st Amdment retaliation clm is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 5)If pltf does not file an amdcmpt w/i 21 days, the Clerk of Court is directed to close case. SEE ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge Yvette Kane on June 20, 2012. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VICTOR LLOYD MITCHELL,
Plaintiff
v.
JOEL R. HOGENTOGLER and
WILLIAM B. JACKSON,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02217
(Chief Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On May 14, 2012, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended that Plaintiff Victor Lloyd Mitchell’s amended complaint be dismissed
in part pursuant to the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e). (Doc. No. 30.) Despite the Court having granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file
objections (Doc. No. 34), Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections to the Report and
Recommendation.1
ACCORDINGLY, on this 20th day of June 2012, upon a de novo review of Magistrate

1

The Court notes that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended
complaint on May 4, 2012. (Doc. No. 29.) On May 17, 2012, the Court received a response to
Defendants’ motion from Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 31.) In his Report and Recommendation,
Magistrate Judge Blewitt made clear that “to address [Defendants’] motion at this point would be
premature because we must first complete the PLRA screening process of Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. Therefore, we will not be addressing this motion in this Report and
Recommendation.” (Doc. No. 30 at 5-6.) The Court will not construe Plaintiff’s response to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss as objections to Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and
Recommendation because: (1) the response is dated May 10, 2012, indicating that it was
completed four days before Magistrate Judge Blewitt even issued his report; (2) the response
does not challenge any of the conclusions or recommendations included in the report; and (3)
Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the report two weeks after filing
his response to Defendants’ motion.
1

Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 30) is
ADOPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s requests that this Court institute criminal charges against Defendants
for their allegedly illegal behavior are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3.

Plaintiff’s claims under the Fourteenth Amendment are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE; and

4.

Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE to Plaintiff filing an amended complaint, correcting the defects
outlined in Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation, within
twenty-one days of the date of this order;

5.

If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date
of this order, the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and

6.

If Plaintiff files an amended complaint within twenty-one days of the date of this
order, all further proceedings in this matter are referred to Magistrate Judge
Blewitt.

S/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

2