Quinn v. Tritt et al

Filing 139

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131 132 - granting 97 SCWA Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of SCWA Defendants on all counts; granting 100 DOC Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of DOC Defendants on all counts; dismissing as moot 106 Motion to Appoint Counsel; dismissing as moot 110 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing as moot 116 Motion to Stay; dismissing as moot 130 SCWA Defendants' Motion to Strike. Clerk of Court directed to close case. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 3/30/21. (dw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PHILLIP QUINN
Plaintiff

:

BRENDA L. TRITT, et al.
Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-632

:

v.

:

(MANNION, D.J.)

:
:
ORDER

Presently before the court are two report and recommendations
(“Reports”) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick. The First Report, (Doc.
131), recommends that the motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 97), filed by
defendants Schuylkill County Municipal Water Authority and its Executive
Director Pat Caulfield, (collectively “SCWA Defendants”), be granted. The
Second Report, (Doc. 132), recommends that the motion for summary
judgment, (Doc. 100), filed by defendants Brenda L. Tritt, Daniel Rhome,
Joseph Sankus, and Kathy Brittain, (collectively, “DOC Defendants”), be
granted. As a result, the Second Report also recommends that the plaintiff
Phillip Quinn’s motion to appoint counsel, (Doc. 106), his motion for summary
judgment, (Doc. 110), and his motion to stay, (Doc. 116), and SCWA
Defendants’ motion to strike Quinn’s reply brief, (Doc. 130), be stricken as
moot. On March 15, 2021, Quinn filed objections to the Reports. (Doc. 135).

SCWA Defendants and DOC Defendants filed responses to those
objections. (Doc. 136; Doc. 138).
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 objections are made 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 (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 72.3.
-2-

In her First Report, Judge Mehalchick notes that because the record
contains no evidence of any actual injury beside Quinn’s September 25,
2016 medical record, containing a diagnosis of colitis, summary judgment in
favor of SCWA Defendants’ is appropriate on all of Quinn’s claims arising
from conduct that occurred after that date. Next, the First Report notes that,
in providing a boil water notice issued by SCWA related to a water main
break on August 22, 2016, Quinn produced evidence that SCWA Defendants
provided contaminated water. However, because Quinn provides no
evidence of contamination at any other specific time prior September 25,
2016, the First Report recommends that summary judgment be entered in
favor of SCWA Defendants for all claims except ones arising from the alleged
contamination on August 22, 2016. With respect to that surviving claim,
however, the First Report concludes that, because Quinn has not produced
any of the necessary evidence linking his colitis to the August 22, 2016 water
main break, he has failed to establish even a plausible causal connection
between SCWA Defendants’ actions and Quinn’s resulting injury and,
therefore, the claim fails. Accordingly, because Quinn’s claims fail, the First
Report recommends SCWA Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be
granted.

-3-

In the Second Report, Judge Mehalchick considered Quinn’s Eighth
Amendment claim and concludes that he fails to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether he was personally exposed to contaminated
water. This is because Quinn does not present any evidence disputing DOC
Defendants’ evidence that prisoners were not exposed to contaminated
water when SCI-Frackville immediately utilized its reservoir tank upon notice
of the break until tests came back negative for bacteria. Further, the Second
Report concludes that Quinn has failed to satisfy the subjective prong of the
deliberate indifference standard. The undisputed protective steps DOC
Defendants’ took in response to the water main break precludes a finding
that DOC Defendants’ disregarded the risk of contaminated water. Finally,
with respect to Quinn’s negligence claim against DOC Defendants, the
Second Report notes that because the alleged contamination occurred in
municipal and not state piping, DOC Defendants’ alleged actions do not fall
into any of the ten exceptions to sovereign immunity. Thus, Judge
Mehalchick concludes that DOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
should be granted and that all claims against them be dismissed with
prejudice. Consequently, Judge Mehalchick recommends that Quinn’s
motions for summary judgment, for appointment of counsel, and to stay the

-4-

case, as well as SCWA Defendants’ motion to strike Quinn’s reply brief, be
dismissed as moot.
Quinn has filed objections to Judge Mehalchick’s Reports. However,
Quinn’s objections do nothing more than reiterate the same claims he has
made throughout the proceedings. His objections do not, however, identify
any issue of material fact that would prevent the entry of summary judgment.
For example, Quinn asserts that “there is ample evidence to infer causation,”
(Doc. 135, at 5), but then proceeds to cite to the same undisputed evidence
that Judge Mehalchick considered but observed was legally insufficient to
show that his colitis diagnosis was caused by the water and not the food he
ate. See Carter v. United States, No. 11-CV-1669, 2013 WL 1149247, at *23 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 19, 2013) (holding that an inmate plaintiff only raised an
issue of material fact by presenting the opinion of a nurse that his injury was
caused by a specific instance of food poisoning).
Here, having reviewed the entirety of the Reports, as well as the
pleadings and the record, the court agrees with the sound reasoning which
lead Judge Mehalchick to her recommendations that the defendants’
motions for summary judgment be granted. As such, the court adopts the
Reports of Judge Mehalchick as the opinions of this court.

-5-

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
(1) Quinn’s objections to the First and Second Report, (Doc.
135), are OVERRULED;
(2) The First and Second Reports of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc.
131; Doc. 132), are ADOPTED IN THEIR ENTIRETY;
(3) SCWA Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Doc.
97), is GRANTED and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor
of SCWA Defendants on all counts;
(4) DOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Doc.
100), is GRANTED and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor
of DOC Defendants on all counts;
(5) Quinn’s motion for appointment of counsel, (Doc. 106),
motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 110), and his motion
to stay the case, (Doc. 116), as well as SCWA Defendant’s
motion to strike, (Doc. 130), are DISMISSED AS MOOT.
(6) The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
DATE: March 30, 2021
18-632-03

-6-