Jurbala v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 3/17/15. (ao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES D. JURBALA,
Plaintiff
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 3:14-CV-1238
(JUDGE NEALON)
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARLSON)

MEMORANDUM
On June 26, 2014, Plaintiff, Charles D. Jurbala, an inmate currently
confined at the United States Penitentiary in Coleman, Florida, filed a complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). On October 27, 2014, Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss and a corresponding brief in support. (Docs. 13 and 14). On
November 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a response and brief in opposition to the motion
to dismiss. (Docs. 16 and 17). On November 26, 2014, Defendant filed a reply
brief. (Doc. 19). On January 29, 2015, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that Defendant’s motion
to dismiss the complaint be denied without prejudice to the presentation and
renewal of the statue of limitations of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim
at trial or in an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 21).
Objections were due by February 17, 2015. (Id.). Defendant has not filed
any objections. For the reasons set forth below, the R&R will be adopted. The

motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice, and the matter will be
remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings, including an
evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes and the statute of limitations
affirmative defense.
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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985);
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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); 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”). In the absence of objections, review
may properly be limited to ascertaining whether there is clear error that not only
affects 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.). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations contained in the report. 28
2

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); M.D. Pa. L.R. 72.3.
Discussion
In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that his Section 1983 rights were violated
when he contracted food poisoning from food tainted with salmonella that was
served to him while he was housed at the United States Penitentiary in Canaan,
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). Magistrate Judge Carlson issued an R&R providing the
factual and procedural background of the case, the applicable standard of review
for a motion to dismiss, and the exhaustion and FTCA statute of limitation
standard of review, all of which are herein adopted. (Doc. 21, pp. 1-15). The
Magistrate Judge concludes that, due to issues of fact and credibility, an
evidentiary hearing is necessary to determine whether Plaintiff is entitled to
equitable tolling of his claim under the FTCA. (Id. at 15-21). Ultimately, because
there are factual issues that require resolution, Magistrate Judge Carlson
recommends that the motion to dismiss be denied without prejudice, and that the
matter be remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson so that an evidentiary hearing can
be scheduled and conducted in order to resolve any factual disputes and the statute
of limitations affirmative defense. (Id. at 21).
After review, and in the absence of objections, because there is no clear
error with Magistrate Judge Carlson’s R&R, it will be adopted as such. Thus, the
3

motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice, and the matter will be
remanded to Magistrate Judge Carlson for further proceedings, including an
evidentiary hearing to resolve any factual disputes and the statute of limitations
affirmative defense.
A separate Order will be issued.

Date: March 17, 2015
/s/ William J. Nealon
United States District Judge

4