Njos v. United States Of America et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 10/13/2015. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
________________________________
SCOTT NJOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1960
(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
Before the court are Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. 60) to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson filed on September 3, 2015
(Doc. 57). For the reasons which follow, we will adopt the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Scott Njos, an inmate confined at the United States Penitentiary at
Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, commenced the instant action on October 9, 2014. An
Amended Complaint was filed on April 13, 2015 (Doc. 27). Plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346 and §§2671-2680, and
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971). The action is based on the alleged inadequacies in Plaintiff’s
psychological treatment. Following an extensive procedural history, which involves
Motions for Summary Judgment filed by both parties, the matter has been assigned
to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson for Report and Recommendation. On
September 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc.
57), wherein he recommended that Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs.

34, 43 and 46) be denied, and that the Defendant’s Motion to Strike (Doc. 48) be
dismissed as moot. On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 60) to
the Report and Recommendation, along with supporting Exhibits (Doc. 61). On
September 24, 2015, the Defendants filed a Response to the Objections (Doc. 68).
Plaintiff filed a Reply to the Response on October 5, 2015 (Doc. 75).

DISCUSSION
When objections are filed to a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate
Judge, we must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to
which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C); see Sample v. Diecks, 885
F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). In doing so, we may accept, reject 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 72.3. Although our review is de novo, we are
permitted by statute to rely upon the Magistrate Judge’s proposed recommendations
to the extent we, in the exercise of sound discretion, deem proper. United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).
As the Magistrate Judge points out, Summary Judgment should only be
granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact. In order for Plaintiff to
prevail on his Summary Judgment Motions, he would have to show that there is no
factual dispute regarding the nature and quality of the mental health care provided to
him by the Bureau of Prisons.
In his first Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment and Inference of the Facts
(Doc. 34), Plaintiff requests the court to find issues of fact regarding his cell side
care. In his second Motion for Summary Judgment and Inference of the Facts (Doc.
43), Plaintiff references his first Motion for Summary Judgment. In his third Omnibus
Motion for Summary Judgment and Inference of the Facts (Doc. 46), Plaintiff

-2-

requests the court to enter judgment on genuine material facts regarding his cell side
therapy. Along with his Motions, Plaintiff attaches exhibits of psychological
assessments, as well as other documents relating to psychological issues and
diagnoses.
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13),
and supporting documentation (Docs. 23 and 24), which Plaintiff has opposed (Docs.
31 and 32)1.
Based on the record before us, we agree with the Magistrate Judge that none
of the claims raised by Plaintiff are amenable to resolution in Plaintiff’s favor, as to
the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Omnibus Motions. Accordingly, we will adopt the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and deny Plaintiff’s Omnibus
Motions for Summary Judgment and Inference of the Facts. An appropriate Order
follows.

1

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) has been addressed in a
separate document.

-3-