Rosa-Diaz v. Harry et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM re M.J. Carlson's REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 4/6/17. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GABRIEL ROSA-DIAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAUREL HARRY, et al.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:16-cv-2303

Magistrate Judge Carlson
Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a second report and recommendation filed by the
magistrate judge. Previously, the magistrate judge filed a report and
recommendation regarding the initial complaint wherein he recommended that the
complaint be dismissed but that Plaintiff Rosa-Diaz (“Diaz”) be given the
opportunity to file an amended complaint. On January 31, 2017, this court granted
Diaz leave to file an amended complaint and remanded the case back to the
magistrate judge for further proceedings. (Doc. 16.)
In his second report and recommendation (Doc. 17), the magistrate judge
recommends that the claims against the supervisory personnel, i.e., Zobitne,
Moore, Heist, Harry and Woodside, be dismissed. The magistrate judge cited
appropriate case law that government officials cannot be held liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of subordinates under the theory of respondeat superior.
(Doc. 17, p. 13 (citing Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S.

658, 691 (1978).) He explained that “personal involvement must be alleged and is
only present where the supervisor directed the actions of supervisees or actually
knew of the actions and acquiesced in them.” (Id. at p. 14 (quoting Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988).) No such proof was set forth in
the complaint.
The magistrate further recommended that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
Conditions of confinement claims against Defendants Tobias, Weiss, Horner,
Gouse and Maxwell be dismissed. On these issues, the claims failed to show that
the defendants’ actions amounted to “deliberate indifference to the inmate’s
health,” in that they acted with both a culpable state of mind and that the physical
conditions of confinement shocked the conscience and departed from minimal
civilized standards of life’s necessities. (Id. at p. 18 (citing Atkinson v. Taylor, 316
F.3d 257 (3d Cir. 2003) and Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)).)
After a review of the report and recommendation and the claims presented in the
amended complaint, the court will adopt the report and recommendation.
An appropriate order will issue.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: April 6, 2017

2