Randolph et al v. FCI Allenwood (Med) et al

Filing 26

ORDER: 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation 24 of MJ Carlson;2. Pltfs objn 25 , is OVERRULED;3. Dfts mtn to dismiss 16 , is GRANTED;4. Pltfs amended complaint 6 , is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 5/17/18. (ma)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SAMIRA RANDOLPH,
Plaintiff
v.
FCI ALLENWOOD (MED), et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 1:17-cv-786
(Judge Kane)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
Before the Court in the above-captioned action are the April 24, 2018 Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. No. 24), recommending dismissal of
Plaintiff Samira Randolph’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 6), for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, and Plaintiff’s belatedly-filed May 14, 2018 objection to the Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25).1 Specifically, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends
granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments arising out of Plaintiff’s attempts to visit her inmate-fiancé at the Federal
Correctional Institution at Allenwood, Pennsylvania (“FCI-Allenwood”).2 (Doc. No. 24 at 11-

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, an objection to a Report and Recommendation must be
filed within 14 days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, as the
Report and Recommendation was filed on April 24, 2018, any objection to the pending Report
and Recommendation was due, at the latest, by May 11, 2018. Thus, Plaintiff’s objection is
untimely. Notwithstanding its untimeliness, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s objection.
2

After the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint was briefed, but
before Magistrate Judge Carlson issued his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a
document entitled “amended complaint.” (Doc. No. 23.) However, as Plaintiff previously filed
an amended complaint in this matter after the issuance of an initial screening Report and
Recommendation identifying defects in her original complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff was required to seek leave of court before filing another amended
complaint, which she failed to do. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“In all other cases, a party may
1

29.)
Having reviewed Plaintiff’s two-page objection in conjunction with Magistrate Judge
Carlson’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is persuaded by Magistrate Judge Carlson’s
sound reasoning supporting his findings and recommendations, and finds that Magistrate Judge
Carlson correctly and comprehensively resolved the substance of Plaintiff’s objection in the
Report and Recommendation itself. Accordingly, the Court will not write separately to address
Plaintiff’s objection, except as noted in the margin.3

amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.”). More
importantly, a review of the document Plaintiff captions an amended complaint reveals that the
document is not an amended complaint, but rather a listing of constitutional and statutory claims,
many of which were previously asserted in the operative complaint in this matter and addressed
by Magistrate Judge Carlson in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court
declines to consider that filing in connection with its review of Magistrate Judge Carlson’s
Report and Recommendation.
3

In her objection, Plaintiff requests that if the Court is inclined to dismiss her complaint,
it do so without prejudice, so that she can re-file her case in the near future with the assistance of
an attorney. (Doc. No. 25 at 1.) This request for dismissal without prejudice is akin to a request
that Plaintiff be permitted leave to amend her complaint. The Court notes that Plaintiff has
already been given one opportunity to file an amended complaint after the issuance of an initial
screening Report and Recommendation identifying defects in her original complaint (Doc. No.
4), resulting in her filing of the amended complaint that is the subject of the pending motion to
dismiss. In general, “[a] district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without allowing
the Plaintiff leave to amend unless amendment would be futile.” Hill v. Rozum, 447 F. App’x
289, 290 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004)). Here, the
Court’s review of Plaintiff’s original complaint, amended complaint, and Magistrate Judge
Carlson’s Report and Recommendation compels dismissal with prejudice, as it is clear that
permitting Plaintiff another opportunity to replead would be futile. Accordingly, the Court will
dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. See Hopkins v. Trenton Bd. of Educ., No.
17-cv-3232, 2018 WL 1243985, at *n.7 (D.N.J. Mar. 1, 2018) (dismissing case with prejudice
because, after multiple chances to assert claims, any additional efforts would be futile).
2

ACCORDINGLY, on this 17th day of May 2018, upon independent review of the record
and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24), of
Magistrate Judge Carlson;

2.

Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. No. 25), is OVERRULED;

3.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16), is GRANTED;

4.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. No. 6), is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE; and

5.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

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

3