Fennell v. Wetzel et al

Filing 61

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's 47 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; Moving Defendants' 16 18 28 Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED; Fennell's Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; De fendants Daniel Schroeder and Mandy Biser's 52 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot; and Fennell shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, file an amended complaint. (See Order for further/complete details.) Amended Pleadings due by 4/18/2019. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 3/19/2019. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
No. 4:17-CV-01520

ROBERT FENNELL,

(Judge Brann)

Plaintiff,

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al,
Defendants.
ORDER

MARCH 19, 2019
Robert Fennell, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, has filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint alleging that numerous defendants violated his constitutional rights and
committed several state law torts. Specifically, Fennell alleges that Defendants
conspired to prevent Fennell from filing grievances and civil complaints, and
physically retaliated against him for attempting to file grievances or complaints. In
January 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that this Court grant three motions to dismiss filed
by numerous defendants (collectively “Moving Defendants”) on the grounds that
Fennell failed to state a claim against many of the defendants, and that several of the
defendants were improperly joined and should instead be sued in another
jurisdiction. Fennell filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.

“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir.
2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

District courts may accept, reject, or

modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
After conducting de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds no error in the recommendation. Consequently, it is hereby ordered that:
1.

Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 47) is ADOPTED;

2.

Moving Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 16, 18, 28) are
GRANTED;

3.

Fennell’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice;

4.

Defendants Daniel Schroeder and Mandy Biser’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 52) is DENIED as moot; and

5.

Fennell shall, within 30 days of the date of this Order, file an amended
complaint—detailing with as much specificity as possible—all claims
that occurred within this Court’s jurisdiction. Any claims predicated
upon actions occurring at SCI Cresson or SCI Houtzdale should be
2

brought before the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT:

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

3