Shields v. Mahaily et al

Filing 16

ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 13 Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety; all claims in Plaintiff's amended complaint against Mahaily, Doe and Goyne are dismissed without prejudice; 15 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct is denied; this case is remanded back to Magistrate Judge Carlson; Dfts Mahaily, DOE (Deputy Warden) and M. Goyne terminated. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/13/19. (lg)

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

ERIC SHIELDS,

No. 4:18-CV-00185
(Judge Brann)

Plaintiff,

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

v.
SUPERINTENDENT MAHAILY,
DEPUTY WARDEN JOHN DOE,
M. GOYNE, C.O. SHEAR, and
C.O. HOPKINS,
Defendants.
ORDER

FEBRUARY 13, 2019
On January 11, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and
Recommendation1 recommending that this Court dismiss all claims brought by Eric
Shields against Superintendent Mahally, Deputy Warden John Doe, and M.Goyne.2
Because Magistrate Judge Carlson previously gave Mr. Shields an opportunity to
amend his claims against those defendants,3 and because Mr. Shields failed to do so
sufficiently, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended that the dismissal be with
prejudice.
On January 17, 2019, Mr. Shields filed an Objection4 to Magistrate Judge
Carlson’s Report and Recommendation. In that document, Mr. Shields does not dispute
1
2
3
4

ECF No. 13.
ECF No. 9.
ECF No. 8.
ECF No. 14.

Magistrate Judge Carlson’s conclusion vis-à-vis the sufficiency of the allegations
against the three defendants in question,5 but instead argues that he should be given
another opportunity to amend his claims against those defendants.6

This Court

disagrees, finding that another bite at the proverbial apple would be both inequitable
and futile.7
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No.
13, is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

2.

All claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. 9, against
Superintendent Mahaily, Deputy Warden John Doe, and M. Goyne, are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct, ECF No.15, is DENIED.

4.

This case is remanded back to Magistrate Judge Carlson.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

5

6

7

The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Carlson’s conclusion that those allegations are
insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Mr. Shields contemporaneously filed a Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. ECF No. 15.
This document is identical to his Objection.
See Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 236 (3rd Cir. 2008); see also Alston v.
Parker, 363 F.3d 229, 234 n.7 (“[D]ismissals with prejudice may be appropriate where . . . the
repleading does not remedy the Rule 8 violation.”).