Gadra-Lord v. Vuksta et al

Filing 63

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Magistrate Judge Carlsons Report and Recommendation 60 , is ADOPTED; 2. Defendant Lisiaks motion for summary judgment 47 , is GRANTED; 3. Magistrate Judge Carlsons Report and Recomm endation 61 , is ADOPTED; 4. Defendant Biscoe, Butts, and Wagners motion for summary judgment 50 , is GRANTED; 5. All remaining John and Jane Doe defendants are dismissed from this action; and 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Lisiak, Biscoe, Butts, and Wagner, and close the case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 4/28/17. (rw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JONATHON GADRA-LORD,
Plaintiff
v.
DEPUTY VUKSTA, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:15-CV-540
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
On March 18, 2015 Plaintiff Gadra-Lord, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Mahanoy (“SCI-Mahanoy”) at all times relevant to this action, filed this civil action
against a number of employees with the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and others,
including Dr. Lisiak, a physician providing medical services to inmates at SCI-Mahanoy. (Doc.
No. 1.) This action arises out of an incident that occurred in May 2013, when Plaintiff fell from
the top bunk of a cell and required medical care. (See Doc. Nos. 1, 10, 12.) Plaintiff asserts
First and Eighth Amendment violations against Dr. Lisiak and corrections officers Biscoe, Butts
and Wagner (the “Commonwealth Defendants”), alleging claims of deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs.1 (Id.)

1

In his June 23, 2015 amended complaint, Plaintiff also asserts claims against three
categories of John and Jane Doe Defendants in addition to Dr. Lisiak and the Commonwealth
Defendants, as follows:
(1)
(2)

medical personnel who were delegated to assess any medical needs I had
throughout my time in the infirmary;
any Correctional Officer who deliberately ignored the fact that I had history of
seizures and gave an order that directly resulted in the conditions that led to my
fall; and
1

Now before the Court are two Reports and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge
Carlson addressing motions for summary judgment filed by the remaining defendants in this
case. (Doc. Nos. 60, 61.) One Report and Recommendation addresses the motion for summary
judgment filed by Dr. Lisiak (Doc. No. 60), and the other Report and Recommendation
addresses the motion for summary judgment filed by the Commonwealth Defendants (Doc. No.
61). In both Reports and Recommendations, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of
material fact as to Plaintiff’s failure to properly and timely exhaust his administrative remedies
with respect to the conditions of confinement claims asserted against the defendants. (Doc. No.
60 at 20-23; Doc. No. 61 at 15-18.) With regard to Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Lisiak,
Magistrate Judge Carlson also finds that Plaintiff has produced no evidence permitting an
inference that Dr. Lisiak was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical needs. (Doc.

(3)

any Correctional Officer who was in charge of administering food rations to each
inmate housed in the infirmary who refused to supply me with necessary
sustainance [sic] and is also responsible for administering toiletries and hygiene
supplies.

(Doc. No. 12 at 1.)
“Doe defendants are routinely used as stand-ins for real parties until discovery permits
the intended defendants to be installed.” Hindes v. F.D.I.C., 137 F.3d 148, 155 (3d Cir. 1998).
When reasonable discovery does not reveal the identities of the defendants, John Doe defendants
must be dismissed. See Blakeslee v. Clinton Cnty., 336 Fed. App’x 248, 250 (3d Cir. 2009)
(affirming district court use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 to dismiss John Doe
defendants after ten months of discovery without identification of those defendants).
Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which provides that “on motion or
on its own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party,” and in light of the fact
that Plaintiff filed his amended complaint almost two years ago, and discovery in this matter
closed on September 28, 2016, without identification of any John or Jane Doe defendants,
Plaintiff’s claims against all John or Jane Doe Defendants will be dismissed.
2

No. 61 at 23.)
Plaintiff objects to both Reports and Recommendations in one document (Doc. No. 62).
In that filing, he objects to Magistrate Judge Carlson’s finding that no genuine issue of material
fact exists as to Plaintiff’s failure to properly and timely exhaust his administrative remedies
with regard to the legal claims at issue in this action. Having considered Plaintiff’s filing, the
Court finds that Magistrate Judge Carlson correctly and comprehensively addressed the
substance of Plaintiff’s objection in the Reports and Recommendations themselves. (Doc. Nos.
60, 61.) Accordingly, the Court will not write separately to address Plaintiff’s objection.
AND SO, upon independent review of the record and applicable law, on this 28th day of
April 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 60), is
ADOPTED;

2.

Defendant Lisiak’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 47), is GRANTED;

3.

Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 61), is
ADOPTED;

4.

Defendant Biscoe, Butts, and Wagner’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No.
50), is GRANTED;

5.

All remaining John and Jane Doe defendants are dismissed from this action; and

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Lisiak,
Biscoe, Butts, and Wagner, and close the case.

s/ Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

3