Saltalamacchia v. Wentzel et al

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 3/11/2015. (rm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY SALTALAMACCHIA, :
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
:
:
JOHN WENTZEL, ET AL.,
:
Defendants
:

CIVIL NO. 3:14-CV-0868
(JUDGE NEALON)
(M.J. MEHALCHICK)

MEMORANDUM
On May 6, 2014, Plaintiff, Anthony Saltalamacchia, an inmate currently
confined at the State Correctional Institution at Pine Grove (“SCI-Pine Grove”)
located in Indiana, Pennsylvania, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for a series of events that allegedly occurred at his prior place of incarceration at
the State Correctional Institution at Rockview (“SCI-Rockview”) located in
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). On July 28, 2014, Magistrate Judge Karoline
Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 7). On
December 8, 2014, a Memorandum and Order was issued, adopting in part and
rejecting in part the R&R’s recommendations, dismissing the majority of
Plaintiff’s claims, and giving Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. (Docs. 14
and 15). On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 17).
On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “motion for order,” requesting that this
Court order SCI-Pine Grove to provide Plaintiff with a typewriter, correction tape,

ribbons, and white-out, arguing that these materials are provided to inmates
housed in the general population, but not to those in administrative custody, and
that these materials were necessary because the use of the “security pen” was
causing him pain. (Doc. 22). On February 19, 2015, Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick issued an R&R, recommending that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.
(Doc. 23). On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the R&R, stating
that “[t]his notice is to inform the court that I will not file a motion for
reconsideration. . .” to the R&R issued February 19, 2015. (Doc. 24). For the
reasons set forth, the R&R will be adopted, and the “motion for order” will be
denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report,
under de novo or any other standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal
issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.
1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). In the absence of objections, review may
properly be limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error that not only affects
2

the rights of the plaintiff, but also seriously affects the integrity, fairness, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 377 (M.D.
Pa. 1998) (Vanaskie, J.); Garcia v. I.N.S., 733 F. Supp. 1554, 1555 (M.D. Pa.
1990) (Kosik, J.) (stating “the district court need only review the record for plain
error or manifest injustice”). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations contained in the report. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); M.D. Pa. Local Rule 72.3.
DISCUSSION
Initially, Magistrate Judge Mehalchick outlines the procedural history of the
case, and summarizes the “motion for order.” (Doc. 23, pp. 1-2). In the R&R’s
Discussion section, Magistrate Judge Mehalchick sets forth the appropriate
standard of review for a preliminary injunction, which is adopted as such. (Id. at
2-3). Ultimately, Magistrate Judge Mehalchick concludes that this Court “lacks the
authority to grant Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief” because this request is
entirely unrelated to the claims that have been raised against officials at SCIRockview, not where he is currently confined. (Id. at 3-4). Additionally,
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick states that, to the extent that the “nature of his
accommodations interfere[] with his ability to adequately prepare litigation papers
in a timely fashion,” the more appropriate remedy would be for Plaintiff to request
3

an extension of time when necessary. (Doc. 23, p. 4). Moreover, as discussed in
the R&R, it has been held that there is no constitutional right to a typewriter, and,
therefore, this Court is under no obligation to grant Plaintiff’s injunctive request.
(Id.); see Jacobs v. District Attorney’s Office, 2013 WL 3773419, at *1 (M.D. Pa.
July 17, 2013) (citing Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977)). As a result,
Magistrate Judge Mehalchick recommends that this Court deny Plaintiff’s “motion
for order.” (Id.).
Upon review of the R&R, and in the absence of objections, it is determined
that there is no clear error with the R&R’s recommendation. As such, the R&R
will be adopted, and Plaintiff’s “motion for order” will be denied.
A separate Order will be issued.
Date: March 11, 2015

/s/ William J. Nealon
United States District Judge

4