Johnson v. Ebbert

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 04/13/2015. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_________________________________
CHARLES JOHNSON,
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
WARDEN EBBERT,
:
Defendant.
:
_________________________________

Civil No. 3:15-CV-578
(Judge Kosik)

MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Karoline Mehalchick filed on March 25, 2015 (Doc. 7), recommending that Plaintiff’s
Motion for an Emergency Preliminary and Permanent Injunction be denied. For the
reasons which follow, we will adopt the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Charles Johnson, an inmate confined at the United States
Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed an Emergency Preliminary and
Permanent Injunction Motion on March 23, 2015. A Memorandum of Law (Doc. 2)
was submitted in support of the Motion. In his Motion, Plaintiff raises concerns for
his safety from prison officials and other inmates. As relief, Plaintiff requests that he
be transferred to a state prison in Missouri, that he be placed in protective custody
until the transfer, and that we direct prison officials to cease certain conduct toward
Plaintiff. On March 25, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 7), wherein she recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be
denied. Specifically, after reviewing the law regarding preliminary injunctive relief
and considering the four factors for granting preliminary injunctive relief, the

Magistrate Judge found that no immediate irreparable injury was alleged.
In response to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff sent a letter to the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 10), wherein he reiterates the sincerity of his claims and
repeats the allegations set forth in his motion. We will construe Plaintiff’s letter as
Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, in
light of Plaintiff’s Objections, we agree with the Magistrate Judge that no immediate
irreparable injury is alleged. As the Magistrate Judge points out, the materials
submitted by Plaintiff outline nothing more than a speculative possibility of future
harm, based upon generalized allegations of threats and harassment. Accordingly,
we will adopt the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge1.

1

Because of the nature of the allegations in the Plaintiff’s motion, the U.S. Probation Office
contacted officials at the Bureau of Prisons about Plaintiff’s allegations and was informed that they will
look into the matter.

-2-