Beckton v. Francis et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 12 MOTION to Dismiss and, or in the alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Steve Brown, Fasciana Francis Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/21/17. (Attachments: # 1 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 2 Unpublished Opinion(s), # 3 Unpublished Opinion(s))(bs)

2012 WL 6721069
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court,
M.D. Pennsylvania.
David E. KATES, Plaintiff,
v.
B.A. BLEDSOE, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 3:CV–11–0391.
|
Dec. 27, 2012.
Attorneys and Law Firms

can reach 120 degrees due to improper ventilation, the cell is
rat and roach infested, and the cell has rust around the toilet,
chipped lead paint, and traces of asbestos. (Id.) Due to these
conditions, Plaintiff's health has deteriorated, as he has lost
weight and suffered from insomnia and respiratory problems.
(Id.)

On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief.
(Doc. 111.) According to Plaintiff, he was brutally beaten and
denied timely medical care in May 2012. As a result, Plaintiff
seeks an order enjoining officers from retaliating, harassing,
assaulting, poisoning, or otherwise harming him in any
manner.

David E. Kates, Lewisburg, PA, pro se.
Michael Butler, United States Attorney's Office, Harrisburg,
PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge.

II. Discussion
The Magistrate Judge recommends the motion be denied.
Specifically, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Complaint
raises claims for the alleged intolerable living conditions in
Plaintiff's cell, while the instant motion raises unrelated
claims regarding abuse and denial of medical care. And,
because a court may not grant preliminary injunctive relief
when the issues raised are entirely different from those raised
in the complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff's
motion be denied.

*1 Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 136) recommending that Plaintiff
David E. Kates' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 111) be denied. Because
the motion addresses matters unrelated to the claims in this
case, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Plaintiff argues that he was assaulted and
denied medical care because he commenced this legal
proceeding and also because he has filed administrative
grievances against various prison officials. Thus, he asserts
that the assault and denial of medical care are related to the
claims in this action contrary to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation.

I. Background

Where objections to the Magistrate Judge's report are filed,
the court must conduct a de novo review of the contested
portions of the report. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106
n. 3 (3d Cir.1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)).
However, this only applies to the extent that a party's
objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749
F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984) (emphasis added). In conducting a
de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of
the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v.
Beard, 829 F.Supp. 736, 738 (M.D.Pa.1993). Although the
review is de novo, the law permits the court to rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it
deems proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,

Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced
this Bivens action on March 1, 2011. The Complaint names
B.A. Bledsoe, the Warden of the United States Penitentiary
at Lewisburg (“USP Lewisburg”), and Harley G. Lappin, the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as the Defendants
in this action.

The Complaint raises claims regarding the conditions of
Plaintiff's confinement at USP Lewisburg. (Compl.)
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he is kept in his cell
twenty-three (23) to twenty-four (24) hours per day, the cell

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

675–76, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980); Goney, 749
F.2d at 7; Ball v. United States Parole Comm'n, 849 F.Supp.
328, 330 (M.D.Pa.1994). Uncontested portions of the report
may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district
court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154, 106 S.Ct. 466,
88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. At the least,
uncontested portions should be reviewed for clear error or
manifest injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F.Supp. 375,
376–77 (M.D.Pa.1998).

*2 The Magistrate Judge's recommendation will be adopted
and Plaintiff's motion will be denied. “[I]t is well established
that a court may not grant a preliminary injunction when the
issues raised in the motion for a preliminary injunction are
entirely different from those raised in the complaint.” Lee v.
Lindsay, No. 06–1824, 2007 WL 1120562, at *1 (M.D.Pa.
Apr.13, 2007) (citing Stewart v. United States Immigration
and Naturalization Service, 762 F.2d 193, 198–199 (2d
Cir.1985)); see also First Health Grp. Corp. v. Nat'l
Prescription Adm'rs, Inc., 155 F.Supp.2d 194, 233 n. 10
(M.D.Pa.2001) (“This Court will not award a preliminary
injunction on grounds not raised in the complaint, as there is,
by virtue of the absence of the issue from the complaint, no
likelihood of success on the merits.”). Here, as noted by the
Magistrate Judge, the Complaint is predicated on the
allegedly unconstitutional conditions in Plaintiff's prison cell.
The request for preliminary injunctive relief, however,
implicates incidents of assaults and delays in medical
treatment unconnected to the conditions in Plaintiff's cell. As
such, Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a
Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 111) will be denied.

III. Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, the Report and
Recommendation will be adopted and the motion will be
denied.

An appropriate order follows.

All Citations
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 6721069

End of Document

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2