Zilich v. Doll et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 4/11/17. (bs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-2814
DR. DOLL, et al.,
Before the court is the report and recommendation of Judge
Mehalchick, (Doc. 64), recommending that the motion for summary judgment
of defendant Ted Williams, (Doc. 53), be GRANTED with respect to the one
remaining claim against him in plaintiff Wayne Zilich’s amended complaint,
(Doc. 33). Judge Mehalchick finds that the undisputed evidence shows that
plaintiff did not properly exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his
claim before he brought this action, and that he failed to establish the
personal involvement of defendant Williams with respect to the Eighth
Amendment denial of proper medical care claim. No objections to the report
have been filed despite the fact that plaintiff’s request for a 45-day extension
of time to object was granted. (Doc. 65, Doc. 66).
Plaintiff Wayne Zilich is a former inmate at SCI Rockview and is
currently residing in Erie, Pennsylvania. He brought this suit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising from his medical
care while incarcerated.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, originally filed this action against Dr. Doll
and Dr. Symons, two doctors at SCI Rockview, as well as against Ted
Williams, the prison health care administrator, and Marirosa Lamas, the
prison superintendent. (Doc. 1). Lamas and Williams filed a motion to dismiss,
(Doc. 11), as did Dr. Doll. (Doc. 17). These motions, as well as plaintiff’s
motion to amend his complaint to include additional defendants and newly
discovered evidence, (Doc. 23), were granted. (Doc. 28). Plaintiff filed his
amended complaint on June 4, 2015. (Doc. 33).
On June 9, 2015, defendants Williams and the SCI Medical Review
Board filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. 34). On
June 22, 2015, defendant Dr. Doll filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 36).
Defendants filed their briefs in support of their motions. Plaintiff failed to file
his briefs in opposition to the motions despite being granted an extension of
time within which to do so. Dr. Symons did not respond to plaintiff’s pleading
since plaintiff failed to provide a valid address for Dr. Symons as directed
resulting in the lack of service upon him. On December 4, 2015, Judge
Mehalchick issued a report and recommendation. Judge Mehalchick
recommended that all of the claims against all of the defendants be dismissed
with prejudice except for plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference regarding
the denial of shoulder surgery against defendant Williams. Plaintiff did not file
objections to the report.
On January 11, 2016, the court issued a memorandum and order, (Doc.
44, Doc. 45), directing as follows:
The report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 43),
is ADOPTED IN FULL. The defendants’ motions to dismiss
plaintiff’s amended complaint, (Docs. 34, 36), are GRANTED. All
claims against defendants Lamas and Dr. Symons are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915A(b)(1) and §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim as
against defendant Williams regarding the denial of shoulder
surgery is PERMITTED TO PROCEED. All other claims against
defendant Williams are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
On June 10, 2016, defendant Williams filed a motion for summary
judgment along with a brief in support, statement of material facts and an
appendix of exhibits. (Doc. 53, Doc. 54, Doc. 55, Doc. 56). Plaintiff filed his
brief in opposition on August 18, 2016. (Doc. 60). Defendant Williams filed a
reply brief, (Doc. 62), and plaintiff filed a sur-reply brief, (Doc. 63). On January
30, 2017, Judge Mehalchick issued her report. (Doc. 64). As mentioned, no
objections have been filed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the
extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, 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 (M.D.Pa.
2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)
(explaining judges should give 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.
Initially, Judge Mehalchick finds that plaintiff filed this case before he
received his response to his final appeal of his grievance and thus, he did not
properly exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit in federal court
as required. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), exhaustion of
administrative remedies is required for all actions concerning prison
conditions brought under federal law. See 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a); Woodford v.
Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006).The PLRA also mandates that inmates “properly”
exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court. Woodford,
548 at 92. The court finds no error with Judge Mehalchick’s conclusion that
plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies before he filed his
Next, as Judge Mehalchick explains, plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
allege in his amended pleading that defendant Williams was personally
involved in the deprivation of his Eighth Amendment rights since there was no
evidence that showed back or shoulder surgery was ever prescribed for
plaintiff. To establish a claim under §1983, a person must prove that someone
deprived him of a constitutional right while acting under the color of state law.
Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). Liability under §1983 is
personal in nature and can only follow personal involvement in the alleged
wrongful conduct shown through specific allegations of personal direction or
actual knowledge and acquiescence. See Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120
F.3d 1286 (3d Cir. 1997)(overturned on other grounds)(citing Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988)).Thus, plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against defendant Williams alleging
that he intentionally denied plaintiff shoulder surgery fails.
Accordingly, the court concurs with Judge Mehalchick’s conclusion that
defendant Williams’ motion for summary judgment should be granted.
For the above reasons, the report and recommendation of Judge
Mehalchick, (Doc. 64), is ADOPTED IN FULL. Defendant Williams’ motion for
summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s remaining Eighth Amendment claim,
(Doc. 53), is GRANTED. A separate order shall issue.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: April 11, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2013 MEMORANDA\13-2814-05.wpd
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?