DELGADILLO v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al
Filing
70
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDER DISMISSING CASE; granting in part and denying in part 59 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 69 Report and Recommendations. (See order for details).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 9/12/19. (bs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOE DELGADILLO,
:
Plaintiff
:
:
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-41
(JUDGE MANNION)
:
:
:
ORDER
Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Karoline
Mehalchick which recommends that the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 69). With the time for
doing so having passed, neither party has filed objections to Judge
Mehalchick’s report. Upon review, the court will adopt Judge Mehalchick’s
report in its entirety.
The plaintiff filed the instant action alleging violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights in relation to a hand injury he sustained at the State
Correctional Institution at Camp Hill. The remaining defendants, Sergeant
Stubbs, Corrections Officer Kerstetter and Corrections Officer Snyder, filed
the instant motion for summary judgment first arguing that the plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim against them was barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. Moreover, the defendants argue that the plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim fails because he has failed to demonstrate any deliberate
indifference on their part.
In reviewing the record in this action, Judge Mehalchick concludes that
the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against the moving defendants is not
barred by the applicable statute of limitations as the operative second
amended complaint relates back to the initial complaint which was timely filed.
As such, Judge Mehalchick recommends that the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be denied on this basis. Judge Mehalchick further
concludes, however, that the plaintiff has, in fact, failed to demonstrate any
deliberate indifference on the part of the moving defendants in order to
sustain his Eighth Amendment claim on the merits. As such, she recommends
that the moving defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted on this
basis. Neither party has objected to Judge Mehalchick’s report and
recommendation.
When no objections are filed to a report and recommendation, 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
2
magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
The undersigned has reviewed the record in this action and finds no
clear error of record. Moreover, the undersigned agrees with the sound
reasoning which led Judge Mehalchick to conclude that the defendants’
motion for summary judgment should be granted in part and denied in part.
Judge Mehalchick’s report and recommendation with therefore be adopted in
its entirety.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1)
The report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick,
(Doc. 69), is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
(2)
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 59),
is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is
GRANTED as to the merits of the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claim and DENIED to the extent that it is argued that the plaintiff’s
claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
(3)
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
IN
FAVOR
OF
DEFENDANTS
STUBBS,
KERSTETTER AND SNYDER AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF
on the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim.
3
(4)
The Clerk of Court is further directed to CLOSE THIS
CASE.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: September 12, 2019
16-41-01.wpd
4
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?