Brown et al v. Wayne County Pennsylvania et al

Filing 68

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle; ; granting 41 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 49 Motion to Dismiss; denying 52 Motion ; adopting 66 Report and Recommendations.Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/21/20. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NOEL L. BROWN, et al.

:

Plaintiffs

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-155

:

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

v.
WAYNE COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.

:
:

Defendants
:
ORDER
Presently before the court is report and recommendation (“Report”) of
Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle, (Doc. 66), which recommends that (1)
the motion to dismiss, (Doc. 41), filed by defendants Wayne County, Wayne
County Sheriff’s Department, Sergeant Patricia Krempasky, Wayne County
District Attorney’s Office, Wayne County Public Defender’s Office, Wayne
County Correctional Facility, Warden Kevin Bishop, and Lieutenant Justin
Rivardo, (collectively, “Wayne Defendants”), be granted; (2) the two motions
to dismiss, (Doc. 44; Doc. 49), filed by defendants the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the State Correctional Institution at
Camp Hill (“SCI-Camp Hill”), Michael Jezercak, Sharon Palmer, Troop R
Honesdale Station, Troop N Swiftwater Station, Troop N Fern Ridge Station,
Robert Yeager, Michael Brown, Thomas O’Brien, and Joseph Diehl,

(collectively, “DOC Defendants”), be granted; (3) the claims against the
remaining defendants, Monroe County, Days Inn Tannersville Hotel, Camilo
Jacer, and Brodheadsville Post Office of Monroe County, be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A; and (4) Brown’s motion regarding service of
documents under Rule 5(c)(1)(A), (Doc. 52), be denied. The plaintiff Noel
Brown (“Brown”) filed objections to the Report. (Doc. 67).
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
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
-2-

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.
Brown, an inmate currently incarcerated at the State Correctional
Institution at Somerset, initiated this action on January 11, 2018, alleging
various constitutional violations by Defendants during his arrest, trial, and
time in prison. (Doc. 2).1 Brown additionally brings a claim against
Brodheadsville Post Office of Monroe County, alleging that it intentionally
made changes to his mail box.
On July 19, 2019, Wayne Defendants filed their motion to dismiss,
(Doc. 41), as well as a brief in support, (Doc. 42), arguing that Brown’s claims
are frivolous and fail as a matter of law. With the court’s permission, Brown
filed a brief in opposition on October 30, 2019. (Doc. 65).
On July 24, 2019, the DOC and SCI-Camp Hill filed a motion to
dismiss, (Doc. 44), and on August 1, 2019, the remaining DOC Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss, (Doc. 49). DOC Defendants filed a brief in support

1

This action was initially brought by Brown and four other plaintiffs;
however, the court terminated the four other plaintiffs by orders dated July
10, 2019, and August 14, 2019, for failure to abide by Judge Arbuckle’s
orders requiring them to either pay the mandatory filing fee or to file a motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 38; Doc. 58).
-3-

of both motions on August 7, 2019, asserting that all claims against them
should be dismissed because they, inter alia, are insufficiently pled, fail as a
matter of law, and because Brown failed to comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. (Doc. 55). On August 19, 2019, Brown filed a brief in
opposition. (Doc. 60).
On August 5, 2019, Brown filed a “motion regarding service of
documents” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(c)(1)(A).2 (Doc.
52). That same day, Brown also filed a brief in support of the motion, (Doc.
53), attached to which was a “brief in support of motion to make pleading
more specific,” (Doc. 53-1).3
In his Report, Judge Arbuckle recommends that Wayne Defendants’
motion to dismiss be granted; DOC Defendants’ two motions to dismiss be
granted; Brown’s claims against Monroe County, Days Inn Tannersville Hotel
and its manager Camilo Jacer, and Brodheadsville Post Office be dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A, which requires a court to screen and dismiss

In pertinent part, this rule states that, “[i]f an action involves an
unusually large number of defendants,” a court may, on motion or on its own,
order that the “defendants’ pleadings and replies to them need not be served
on other defendants.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(c)(1)(A). No defendant in this action
has filed a motion pursuant to this rule.
2

Significantly, there is no corresponding “motion to make a pleading
more specific” pending on the docket.
3

-4-

prisoner complaints that, inter alia, fail to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted; and that Brown be granted leave to file an amended complaint
since the complaint’s deficiencies may be cured by amendment. Finally,
Judge Arbuckle recommends that Brown’s motion regarding service be
denied because it is unclear what relief Brown is seeking.
Brown has filed objections to Judge Arbuckle’s report. However,
Brown’s objections do nothing more than repeat the same claims raised in
the complaint or express his personal disagreement with applicable law. The
court has conducted a thorough review of all pertinent filings and finds the
Report of Judge Arbuckle to be well-reasoned and well-supported. As such,
the court will adopt the report in its entirety as the decision of the court.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Judge Arbuckle’s Report, (Doc. 66), is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY;
(2) Brown’s

objections

to

the

Report,

(Doc.

67),

are

OVERRULED;
(3) Wayne Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Doc. 41), is
GRANTED;
(4) DOC Defendants’ motions to dismiss, (Doc. 44; Doc. 49), are
GRANTED;
-5-

(5) Brown’s claims against defendants Monroe County, Days Inn
Tannersville Hotel, Camilo Jacer, and Brodheadsville Post
Office are DISMISSED;
(6) Brown’s motion regarding service of documents under Rule
5(c)(1)(A), (Doc. 52), is DENIED.
(7) Brown is GRANTED thirty (30) days from the date of this
order to file an amended complaint; and
(8) This case is REMANDED to Judge Arbuckle for further
proceedings.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: February 21, 2020
18-155-03

-6-