Hammonds v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al

Filing 117

ORDER: ADOPTING Report and Recommendation 116 ; DENYING Plaintiff's 102 Motion for TRO and a Preliminary Injunction; REMANDING the case to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings.Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 8/30/16. (km)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVNIA

RICHARD ALLEN HAMMONDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et. al,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No.: 4:14-CV-00527

(Judge Brann)

(Magistrate Judge Schwab)

ORDER
August 30, 2016
On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff, Richard Allen Hammonds, hereinafter
“Hammonds,” commenced the present action by filing a complaint against thirty
defendants.1 Defendants are current and former employees of the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections and medical personnel who provide services at state
prisons.2 Hammonds contends, among other things, that officials at the State
Correctional Institution Frackville poisoned his food with detergent chemicals and
a “deadly dose… of hepatitis.”3 Hammonds contends that he was subsequently
denied medical treatment for the symptoms and conditions he incurred as a result.4

1

ECF No. 1.
ECF No. 1.
3
ECF No. 103 at 1.
4
ECF No. 103 at 2.
2

Before this Court is Hammonds’s September 11, 2015 motion for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.5 Hammonds asserts that
the medical symptoms he has incurred as a result of the alleged poisoning require
immediate gastroenterological intervention; he therefore requests a “temporary
restraining order requiring the Defendants to arrange for an examination and a plan
of treatment by a qualified specialist and a preliminary injunction requiring the
Defendants to carry out that plan of treatment.”6
On September 25, 2015, Commonwealth defendants filed a brief in
opposition to Hammonds’s motion.7 On October 5, 2015, Hammonds filed a reply
brief.8 On July 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab filed a Report and
Recommendation addressing Hammonds’s motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction.9 Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended that
this Court: (1) deny Hammonds’s motion for temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction; and (2) remand the case to her for further proceedings.10

5

ECF No. 102.
ECF No. 103 at 2.
7
ECF No. 105.
8
ECF No. 106.
9
ECF No. 116.
10
ECF No. 116 at 15.
6

When a Report and Recommendation is filed, it is disseminated to the
parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.11 When
objections are timely filed, the district court must conduct a de novo review of
those portions of the report to which objections are made.12 Although the standard
of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the discretion
of the district court, which may otherwise rely on the recommendations of the
magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.13 For portions of the report and
recommendation to which 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.”14 Regardless of whether timely objections
are made by a party, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.15
No objections to Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation
have been filed, and the August 12, 2016 filing deadline has passed. This Court has
reviewed the Report and Recommendation and is satisfied that there is no clear
error on its face. As such, I will adopt it in full.
11

28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011)
13
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)
14
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 that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)
15
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31
12

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. ECF No. 116.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction is DENIED. ECF No. 102.
3. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings.
BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge