Massaquoi v. McConaughey et al

Filing 63

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; granting 54 Motion to Dismiss; adopting 61 Report and Recommendations.Clerk to close case. (See order for details).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/21/20. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MANNA MASSAQUOI,

:

Plaintiff

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-938

:

(MANNION, D.J.)
(ARBUCKLE, M.J.)

v.
SERGEANT J. McCONAUGHEY,
et al.,

:
:

Defendants
ORDER
Presently before the court is the report and recommendation (“Report”)
of Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, (Doc. 61), which recommends that
a motion to dismiss, (Doc. 54), filed by the fifty-five defendants in this case,
(collectively “Defendants”), be granted.1 The plaintiff Manna Massaquoi
(“Massaquoi”) filed a “Notice of Appeal,” which this court will construe as
objections to the Report. (Doc. 62).2
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of

1

Defendants include the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and
fifty-four of its employees.
2

Attached to his objections are two additional motions: a motion for
application of in forma pauperis and continuation of in forma pauperis status
and a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 62-1, at 1-3). As explained
below, these motions will be dismissed as moot.

the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to
the extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
Even where no objection is made, 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 magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); M.D.Pa. Local Rule 72.31.
On May 20, 2017, Massaquoi initiated the instant action with a threepage complaint, alleging that Defendants, among other things, violated his
First, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Doc. 1).
Massaquoi simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
-2-

2). On August 8, 2017, Judge Arbuckle issued an order granting Massaquoi’s
motion and additionally reviewed the complaint pursuant to the screening
procedures of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e) that are applicable to in forma pauperis
complaints. (Doc. 13). Based upon his review, Judge Arbuckle concluded
that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
and permitted Massaquoi twenty-eight days to cure the noted deficiencies
through an amended complaint. After requesting and receiving numerous
extensions of time, Massaquoi filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2018,
which consisted of 138 paragraphs of allegations against Defendants
relating to all aspects of his incarceration at the State Correctional Institution
at Smithfield. (Doc. 27).
By verbal order dated November 14, 2018, the case was reassigned
to the undersigned judge. On April 19, 2019, Defendants filed the present
motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint should be dismissed
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 54). Defendants additionally argued
that dismissal was appropriate because Massaquoi failed to allege a causal
connection between his filing of grievances and the numerous adverse
actions he alleges occurred. Massaquoi did not file a brief in opposition.

-3-

In his Report, Judge Arbuckle conducted an extensive and thorough
review of the merits of each of Massaquoi’s claims against each Defendant,
including one in which Massaquoi fails to identify any defendant actor, and
recommends that each be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Judge
Arbuckle separately addressed Massaquoi’s four alleged instances of
retaliation and concluded that these claims should be dismissed due to
Massaquoi’s failure to allege that Defendants took any specific adverse
action in response to his filing of grievances. At most, Judge Arbuckle
observes that Massaquoi alleges that he had a difficult relationship with
prison staff and that he filed grievances as a prisoner, but he has not alleged
anything to support a causal connection between the two.
Additionally, because Massaquoi failed file a brief in opposition to the
motion to dismiss, Judge Arbuckle conducted a Poulis analysis of the
amended complaint to determine whether dismissal is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute. See Poulis v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 870 (3d Cir. 1984) (setting forth
five favors that courts should weigh in order to assure that the “extreme”
sanction of dismissal or default is appropriate).3 Judge Arbuckle determined

These factors include the following: (1) the extent of the party’s
personal responsibility; (2) the prejudice to the adversary caused by the
3

(footnote continued on next page)

-4-

that each of the six Poulis factors weighed in favor of dismissal, particularly
in light of Massaquoi’s repeated and intentional disregard for the court’s
instructions.
Finally, Judge Arbuckle recommends that Massaquoi not be granted
further leave to amend because to do so would be futile where Massaquoi’s
amended complaint contains the same deficiencies that were pointed out to
him by the court in its screening of his original complaint. Accordingly, for all
these reasons, Judge Arbuckle recommends this court grant Defendants’
motion to dismiss with prejudice or, in the alternative, dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to prosecute under Rule 41, and in either case to deny
leave to amend.
In Massaquoi’s filing that this court is construing as objections to the
Report, he does not identify any specific errors in the Report. Instead,
Massaquoi merely states that he wishes to appeal Judge Arbuckle’s Report
to the Third Circuit and that, because he is “currently struggling in preparation
of his first pro-se civil (14-4466) jury trial with jury selection scheduled to

failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery; (3) whether there
is a history of dilatoriness; (4) whether the conduct of the party or the attorney
was willful or in bad faith; (5) the effectiveness of a sanction other than
dismissal, including analysis of alternative sanctions; and (6) the
meritoriousness of the claim or defense. Id. at 868.
-5-

commence on 2-24-20,” he “will not be able to attain [sic] to any other
proceedings until after the civil jury trial.” (Doc. 62, at 1).
Here, given their general nature, the court is unable to specifically
address Massaquoi’s objections to the Report. Nevertheless, the court has
conducted a de novo review of the entire Report, the pleadings, and the other
filings of record, as well as applicable law in this case, and the court agrees
with the Judge Arbuckle’s sound reasoning which led him to his
recommendation that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that
Massaquoi be denied any further leave to amend on the basis of futility. As
such, the court adopts the Report of Judge Arbuckle as the opinion of this
court, and Massaquoi’s objections are overruled.
Finally, because the court is adopting the Report which recommends
dismissal of the amended complaint with prejudice, the two additional
motions that Massaquoi attached to his objections to the Report, (Doc. 62-1,
at 1-3) are DENIED AS MOOT.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Report of Judge Arbuckle, (Doc. 61), is
ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;
(2) Massaquoi’s objections to the Report, (Doc. 62), are
OVERRULED;
-6-

(3) The Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 55), is
GRANTED;
(4) Massaquoi’s amended complaint, (Doc. 27), is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
(5) Massaquoi’s motion for application of in forma
pauperis and continuation of in forma pauperis status
and his motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 621, at 1-3), are DISMISSED AS MOOT; and
(6) The Clerk of Court is direct to CLOSE THE CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: February 21, 2020
17-938-01

-7-