Eakle v. Johnson et al
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM (Attachments: # 1 R&R)(eo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLIE EAKLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1:11-cv-2384
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson
MEMORANDUM
February 2, 2011
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 7), filed on January 10,
2012, which recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice to the
Plaintiff to correct the defects in the complaint by filing an amended complaint
within twenty days of the dismissal of the case. Plaintiff has not filed objections to
the R&R and the time to do so has lapsed.1 For the reasons set forth below, the
Court will adopt the R&R.
1
Objections were due by January 30, 2012.
1
I.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report
before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the
Third Circuit, however, “the better practice is 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). “[T]he 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 Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating
“the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the
loss of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.
Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa.
1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court’s
examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.
II.
DISCUSSION
Pro se Plaintiff Charlie Eakle (“Plaintiff” or “Eakle”), a state prisoner, filed
this action on December 28, 2011 against seven prison official defendants raising
claims concerning his medical care, the loss of property from his cell, his treatment
at the hands of fellow inmates, and the refusal of state officials to bring criminal
2
charges on his behalf against those Eakle believes have mistreated him. Notably,
all of the contentions in Plaintiff’s complaint occurred between February 2006 and
September 2009. Eakle’s complaint seeks wide-ranging injunctive relief and
damages totaling $8.9 million.
Along with his complaint, Eakle filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 2). Within the R&R Magistrate Judge Carlson screened the
complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined that Eakle’s complaint
fails to meet the pleading standards prescribed by law and all of the claims are
barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Carlson notes
that the latest allegations contained in the complaint occurred in September of 2009,
but that this complaint was filed in December of 2011, outside of the two-year
statue of limitations applied to civil rights matters. Further, Magistrate Judge
Carlson correctly notes that Eakle’s prayer for $8.9 million in damages violates
Local Rule 8.1 by specifying a particular amount of unliquidated damages and thus
should be stricken from the complaint. Finally, Magistrate Judge Carlson
recommends, consistent with the precedent of Alston v. Parker, 363 F. 3d 229 (3d
Cir. 2004) that the Plaintiff be given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his
complaint by dismissing the deficient complaint at this time without prejudice to
one final effort by Eakle to comply with the rules governing civil actions in federal
3
court, by filing an amended complaint containing any timely and proper claims
which he may have. We specifically advise Plaintiff to carefully review pages 7 to
12 of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, wherein the Magistrate Judge describes the
deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint in detail. (Doc. 7). Notably, as currently
written, the Plaintiff’s complaint clearly is barred by the statute of limitations,
however, he may be able to avail himself of the protection of the continuing
violation doctrine to toll the statute of limitations if he is able to allege facts that
support such a finding.
As we have already mentioned, the Plaintiff has not filed objections to this
R&R. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that led the Magistrate Judge to
the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in its entirety. With a mind
towards conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash the reasoning of the
Magistrate Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to this document, as it
accurately reflects our consideration and resolution of the case sub judice. An
appropriate Order shall issue.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?