McBride v. Lebanon County Commissioners et al

Filing 20

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Motion for reconsideration 18 of MJ's report CONSTRUED as pltf's obj to R&R & DENIED to that extent.; 2. Motion for ext of time 16 to respond to MJ's report DENIED as MOOT.; 3. Report of Chie f Magisrate Judge Carlson 25 rec dismissal of pltf's claims vs York Co defts but allowing proceed vs Leb Co defts ADOPTED in its entirety.; 4. Pltf's claims vs defts S. Chronister, D. Hoke, C. Reilly & D. Rukert DISMISSED w/ prejudice.; USM directed to serve pltf's amended complaint 8 on remainind defts. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 11/4/13. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

AMY MCBRIDE,

:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
LEBANON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, :
et al.,
:
Defendants.
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2336
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2013, upon consideration of the report of
Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 11), wherein the magistrate judge
recommends that the court dismiss the complaint (Doc. 1) to the extent the pro se
plaintiff seeks to bring claims against a prison facility in which she is no longer housed
because such claims are barred as moot (Doc. 11 at 7–9), but otherwise recommends that
the court permit the pro se plaintiff to proceed with her claims to the extent they relate
to alleged constitutional violations at the Lebanon County Prison where she is currently
housed, (id. at 10), and, after an independent review of the record, and noting that the
pro se plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s report on
October 28, 2013, and the court electing to construe that motion as plaintiff’s objections
to the report,1 and the court finding Judge Carlson’s analysis to be thorough,

1

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)).

well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the court further finding pro se
plaintiff’s objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson’s
report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The motion (Doc. 18) for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s report
(Doc. 11) is CONSTRUED as the pro se plaintiff’s objection to the report and
is DENIED to that extent.

2.

The motion (Doc. 16) for extension of time to respond to the magistrate
judge’s report (Doc. 11) is DENIED as moot.

3.

The report of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. 25) recommending
dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against the York County defendants but
allowing plaintiff to proceed against the Lebanon County defendants is
ADOPTED in its entirety.

4.

The plaintiff’s claims against defendants Steve Chronister, Doug Hoke,
Chris Reilly, and Donald Rukert are DISMISSED with prejudice.

5.

The United States Marshals Service is directed to serve the pro se plaintiff’s
amended complaint (Doc. 8) on the remaining defendants.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania