Bayer v. Pocono Medical Center et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 7/23/14. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRUCE H. BAYER,

:

Plaintiff

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-1900

v.

:

(MANNION, D.J.)
(SCHWAB, M.J.)

POCONO MEDICAL CENTER,
et al.,

:
:

Defendants
:
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended
complaint filed on behalf of defendants Pocono Medical Center, Pocono
Medical Center Mental Health Unit, and Ann McDonald, (Doc. 12), as well as
the report of Magistrate Judge Schwab which recommends that the
defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that the plaintiff’s amended
complaint be dismissed sua sponte with respect to the remaining defendants,
(Doc. 19).
By way of relevant background, on July 11, 2013, the plaintiff filed the
instant action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights by the defendants in relation to his involuntary mental
commitment. (Doc. 1). By order dated November 6, 2013, Judge Schwab

granted the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 4). After
screening the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), Judge
Schwab concluded that it failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted because, among other things, the plaintiff had failed to allege facts
from which it could reasonably be inferred that the defendants were acting
under color of state law as is required for a claim pursuant to §1983. The
plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend his complaint to correct the
deficiency. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 6, 2014. (Doc.
10)1.
On February 12, 2014, the moving defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the plaintiff’s amended complaint, (Doc. 12), along with a brief in support
thereof, (Doc. 13). By order dated February 14, 2014, the plaintiff was advised
of the manner in which he was to respond to the defendants’ motion. (Doc.
14). On March 4, 2014, when the plaintiff failed to file a brief in opposition to
the defendants’ motion, the defendants filed a supplemental brief arguing that
the motion should be granted as unopposed. (Doc. 15). After having
requested an extension of time to do so, the plaintiff filed an opposing brief on

1

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s original
complaint, (Doc. 8), which was rendered moot by the plaintiff’s filing of an
amended complaint, (Doc. 10).
2

March 17, 2014. (Doc. 18).
By report dated May 16, 2014, Judge Schwab recommended that the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint be granted
on the basis that the plaintiff’s amended complaint still does not sufficiently
allege that the defendants acted under color of state law. In addition, Judge
Schwab recommends that the plaintiff’s amended complaint be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because he has failed
to sufficiently set forth a RICO claim. Finally, because the plaintiff has failed
to state a federal claim against the defendants and considerations of judicial
economy, convenience and fairness do not compel otherwise, Judge Schwab
recommends that the court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the plaintiff’s state law medical malpractice claim. No objections have been
filed by either party to Judge Schwab’s report.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v.
Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (2010) (citing Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give

3

some review to every Report and Recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether
timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
The court has reviewed each of the recommended bases for dismissal
of the plaintiff’s amended complaint presented by Judge Schwab. Because
the court agrees with the sound reasoning that led Judge Schwab to the
conclusions in her report and finds no clear error on the face of the record, the
court will adopt the report in its entirety. An appropriate order shall issue.

s/Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: July 23, 2014
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2013 MEMORANDA\13-1900-01.wpd

4