Lyons v. Beard et al

Filing 94

ORDER & JUDGMENT ADOPTING REPORT 93 of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson, GRANTING defts MSJ 75 , ENTERING JUDGMENT (Summary) in favor of remaining defts (Michael Damore, Michael Klopotoski, Norman Demming, Jerome Walsh) & against pltf Eric Lyons on Lyons' procedural due process, equal protection & retaliation claims, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order & jdgmt for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 7/12/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC LYONS,
Plaintiff
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2952
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER & JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this 12th day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 93) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the
court grant the remaining defendants’ motion (Doc. 75) for summary judgment,
wherein Judge Carlson opines that pro se plaintiff Eric Lyons (“Lyons”) failed to
fully exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, (see Doc. 93 at 18-23); that Lyons’ procedural due process
claim regarding placement on the Department of Corrections’ Restricted Release
List (“RRL”) is moot to the extent he seeks injunctive relief as he has already been
removed from restricted housing and the RRL, and is without merit otherwise as
Lyons fails to present any evidence tending to establish that periodic and annual
reviews of his custodial designation were constitutionally inadequate, (see id. at
23-25); that Lyons’ equal protection claim is without merit because he has not
established that he was treated differently from other inmates in restricted housing,
(see id. at 25-28); and that Lyons’ retaliation claims fail for want of evidence tending
to establish that any defendant subjected him to an adverse consequence born of

retaliatory motive, (see id. at 28-35), and it appearing that Lyons did not object to
the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party
to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de
novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir.
2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as
a matter of good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878; see also
Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac
Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order
to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the
record, the court in agreement with Judge Carlson’s recommendation,1 and
concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby
ORDERED that:

1

Regarding Lyons’ procedural due process claim, the court notes that
the matter sub judice is distinct from the circumstances undergirding the recent
decision in Shoatz v. Wetzel, No. 2:13-CV-657, 2016 WL 595337 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 12,
2016), which concluded that it was the province of the jury and not the court to
decide whether correctional defendants deprived Shoatz of meaningful review of
his placement on the RRL. See id. at *11. Unlike Shoatz, Lyons offers only a broad
and generic challenge to his placement on the RRL but presents no evidence
tending to establish that periodic reviews of his placement were constitutionally
inadequate. (See Doc. 93 at 24-25). Further, Lyons procedurally defaulted his claim
by failing to fully exhaust administrative remedies. (See id. at 18-23).
2

1.

The report (Doc. 93) of Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2.

Defendants’ motion (Doc. 75) for summary judgment is GRANTED.

3.

Judgment is ENTERED against Lyons and in favor of the remaining
defendants on Lyons’ procedural due process, equal protection, and
retaliation claims.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

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

3