Real v. Dunkle et al

Filing 17

ORDER re 16 Memorandum (Order to follow as separate docket entry), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:(A) Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.(B) Magistrate Judge Blewitts Report and Recommendations (Doc. 9) to Plain tiffs Complaint is REJECTED in part and ADOPTED in part as follows:(1) The Recommendations that Plaintiffs claims for compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed and that the claim for specific monet ary damages be stricken from the Complaint are ADOPTED. (2) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim with prejudice as to all Defendants is ADOPTED.(3) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs § 1981,  7; 1985(3), and § 1986 claims with prejudice as to all Defendants is ADOPTED.(4) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs § 1983 conspiracy claim with prejudice as to Defendants McMillan, Burns, Romig, Segedy, Mowrey, Dascani, and Mason is ADOPTED.(5) The Recommendation to dismiss Defendants Mowrey, Dascani, and Mason from the action with prejudice is ADOPTED.(6) The Recommendation to dismiss Defendants McMillan, Burns, Romig, and Segedy from the action without prejudice is ADOPTED. P laintiff may file an amended complaint to allege the personal involvement of Defendants McMillan, Burns, Romig, and Segedy as to Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation and denial of access to the courts claims. (7) The Recommendation to allow Plainti ff to proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim as to Defendants Murphy and Gormley is ADOPTED, but the Recommendation to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim as to Defendants Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark is REJECTED . Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Murphy, Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark. (8) The Recommendation to allow Plaintiff to proceed on his First Amendment denial of access to the courts claim as to Defendants Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Gormley, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark is ADOPTED, but the Recommendation to dismiss the First Amendment denial of access to the courts claim as to Defendant Murphy is REJECTED. Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amendment denial of access to the courts claim as to Defendants Murphy, Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark. (9) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiffs § 1983 conspiracy claim as to Defendants Murphy, Gormley, Du nkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark is REJECTED. Plaintiff may proceed on his § 1983 conspiracy claim as to Defendants Murphy, Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark. (C) This case is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable A. Richard Caputo on 4/23/12. (jam, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FERNANDO REAL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-2071

Plaintiff,

(JUDGE CAPUTO)

v.

(MAGISTRATE JUDGE BLEWITT)

LT. DUNKLE, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER

NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(A) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 5) is GRANTED.
(B) Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. 9) to Plaintiff’s
Complaint is REJECTED in part and ADOPTED in part as follows:
(1) The Recommendations that Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive
damages against Defendants in their official capacities be dismissed and that the
claim for specific monetary damages be stricken from the Complaint are ADOPTED.
(2) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
claim with prejudice as to all Defendants is ADOPTED.
(3) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1981, § 1985(3), and § 1986 claims
with prejudice as to all Defendants is ADOPTED.
(4) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim with
prejudice as to Defendants McMillan, Burns, Romig, Segedy, Mowrey, Dascani, and
Mason is ADOPTED.
(5) The Recommendation to dismiss Defendants Mowrey, Dascani, and Mason from
the action with prejudice is ADOPTED.
(6) The Recommendation to dismiss Defendants McMillan, Burns, Romig, and
Segedy from the action without prejudice is ADOPTED.

Plaintiff may file an

amended complaint to allege the personal involvement of Defendants McMillan,
Burns, Romig, and Segedy as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation and denial

of access to the courts claims.
(7) The Recommendation to allow Plaintiff to proceed on his First Amendment
retaliation claim as to Defendants Murphy and Gormley is ADOPTED, but the
Recommendation to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim as to Defendants
Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark is REJECTED. Plaintiff may
proceed on his First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants Murphy,
Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark.
(8) The Recommendation to allow Plaintiff to proceed on his First Amendment denial
of access to the courts claim as to Defendants Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Gormley,
Hyslack, Malik, and Clark is ADOPTED, but the Recommendation to dismiss the
First Amendment denial of access to the courts claim as to Defendant Murphy is
REJECTED. Plaintiff may proceed on his First Amendment denial of access to the
courts claim as to Defendants Murphy, Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack,
Malik, and Clark.
(9) The Recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claim as to
Defendants Murphy, Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark is
REJECTED. Plaintiff may proceed on his § 1983 conspiracy claim as to Defendants
Murphy, Gormley, Dunkle, Meyers, Doe, Hyslack, Malik, and Clark.
(C) This case is RECOMMITTED to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for further proceedings.

/s/ A. Richard Caputo
A. Richard Caputo
United States District Judge