Tenon v. Dreibelbis et al

Filing 72

ORDER: 1. The magistrate judges R & R 66 is adopted. 2. The motion 46 for summary judgment filed by Dft Long is GRANTED. 3. The mtn 50 for summary judgment filed by Dft Dreibelbis is GRANTED.4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Dfts Long and Dreibelbis and against Pltf.5. The Clerk of Court shall close this file. Signed by Honorable William W. Caldwell on 11/7/13. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY TENON,
Plaintiff
v.
WILLIAM DREIBELBIS, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
: CIVIL NO. 1:12-CV-1278
:
:
(Judge Caldwell)
:
:
(Magistrate Judge Blewitt)
:
:

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
We are considering the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
recommending that the two motions for summary judgment, filed by each of the two
remaining defendants, be granted. Plaintiff has filed objections to the report. Because
objections were 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 made an Eighth Amendment medical claim against various
defendants arising from treatment he received for a broken jaw. Plaintiff suffered the
broken jaw after he fainted in his cell at SCI-Smithfield as a result of his diabetes. The
report deals with the liability of the remaining two defendants in the case: William
Dreibelbis, Smithfield’s corrections health care administrator, and Dr. Ronald Long, a
doctor at Smithfield. The magistrate judge recommends that the claim be dismissed as

against Dreibelbis because he had no involvement in Plaintiff’s medical care, having
instead handled Plaintiff’s grievance concerning the care he did receive. (Doc. 1, ECF p.
14). The magistrate judge recommends that the claim be dismissed as against Dr. Long
because Dr. Long’s involvement in Plaintiff’s care was limited to having received two
inmate requests from Plaintiff complaining that the Motrin he had been prescribed by a
physician’s assistant for pain was not working. (Doc. 1, ECF pp. 10 and 12). The
magistrate judge reasoned that Dr. Long, as a nontreating physician, could not be held
liable for an Eighth Amendment violation for this limited contact with Plaintiff, given the
treatment he was receiving, which included eventual surgical repair of his jaw.
We have reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and find them to be without merit as
they do not address the facts relevant to his claims against these defendants.
Accordingly, this 7th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of the
report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 66), and the objections that
were filed (Doc. 70), and upon independent review of the record, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s report (Doc. 66) is adopted.
2. The motion (Doc. 46) for summary judgment filed by
Defendant Long is GRANTED.
3. The motion (Doc. 50) for summary judgment filed by
Defendant Dreibelbis is GRANTED.

-2-

4. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of
Defendants Long and Dreibelbis and against Plaintiff.
5. The Clerk of Court shall close this file.

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

-3-