Johnson v. Sullivan et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT (#74 in 1:13-CV-1866) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson EXCEPT to extent it recs adding deft Vogel as deft in Johnson v Holt (1:13-CV-1866).; 2. Pltf's motion to alter or amend jdgmt (#52 in 1:13-CV-1866) is GR ANTED in part & DENIED in part as follows... (see Paras 2a-c for specifics).; 3. Matter REMANDED to Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/30/15. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAWRENCE JOHNSON,

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-1866
:
Plaintiff
: (Chief Judge Conner)
:
v.
:
:
R. HOLT, et al.,
:
:
Defendants
:
________________________________________________________________
LAWRENCE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
v.
SULLIVAN, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-336
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of June, 2015, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 74) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued in Johnson v. Holt, No.
1:13-CV-1866, recommending that the court grant in part and deny in part pro se
plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 52) to alter or amend judgment, wherein Judge Carlson
opines that the court should grant the motion to the extent it pertains to plaintiff’s
previously dismissed mail handling claims in Johnson v. Holt, No. 1:13-CV-1866, in
light of defendants’ concession that plaintiff did in fact properly exhaust said claims,
(see Doc. 74 at 8-9), but deny the motion in all other respects, (see id. at 9-12), and
wherein Judge Carlson also recommends that Correctional Officer Vogel be added
as a defendant to the medical deliberate indifference claims asserted in Johnson v.

Sullivan, 1:15-CV-336, and also be added as a defendant in Johnson v. Holt, No.
1:13-CV-1866, pursuant to the amended complaint (Doc. 49) filed therein, and the
court noting that plaintiff filed objections (Doc. 82)1 to the report, and, following an
independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with the Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation that the court reinstate the previously dismissed mail
handling claims and add defendant Vogel as a defendant to the medical deliberate
indifference claims asserted in Johnson v. Sullivan, 1:15-CV-336, but finding that
plaintiff does not state claims for denial of access to the courts, retaliation, or mail
handling violations against defendant Vogel to warrant his inclusion as a defendant
with respect to those claims in Johnson v. Holt, No. 1:13-CV-1866, and that plaintiff
does not request such relief in his motion and brief, (see Docs. 52-53), and the court
concluding that plaintiff’s objections are without merit and squarely addressed by
the report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 74) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson is
ADOPTED except to the extent it recommends adding defendant
Vogel as a defendant in Johnson v. Holt, No. 1:13-CV-1866.

2.

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 52) to alter or amend judgment is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the district court performs a de novo review of the contested portions of the report.
See Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Trans., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)).
The court reviews uncontested portions of the report for “clear error on the face of
the record.” Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
2

a.

b.

The Clerk of Court is directed to add defendant Correctional
Officer Vogel as a defendant for purposes of the medical
deliberate indifference claims asserted in Johnson v. Sullivan,
No. 1:15-CV-336.

c.

3.

Plaintiff’s previously dismissed mail handling claims against
defendants Warden Holt, Associate Warden Dunbar, Inmate
Systems Managers Farley and Trentley, and Correctional
Officers Mazza, Bushinski, Kalogna, Potter, Bond, and Beck, in
Johnson v. Holt, No. 1:13-CV-1866, are REINSTATED.

The claims identified in paragraphs 2 and 3 above are reinstated
and added without prejudice to defendants’ ability to file a
renewed motion to dismiss said claims on the merits.

This matter is REMANDED to Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson for
further proceedings.

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

3