BRACEY v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2012; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss 40 filed on behalf of the DOC Defendants shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 1. The motion shall be GRANTE D insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims arising out of medication distribution security procedures and alleged medical malpractice and, accordingly, those claims shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice; 2. The m otion shall be GRANTED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff's claims directed against the Department of Corrections and, accordingly, those claims shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice; and 3. The motion shall be DENIED in all other respects. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation 74 , filed on February 17, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Kelly, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge Sean J. McLaughlin on 03/08/2012. (kas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COREY BRACEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; Superintendent
HARLOW; Deputy HALL; Deputy
BRYANT; Major GILLMORE; Major
SUTTER; Captain WHITE; Captain
FRONZ; Captain MORROW; Lieutenant
DEAL; Sergeant WOLFE; Correction
Officer STAFFORD; MAXINE OVERTON;
Dr. ROMAN; MENTAL HEALTH
MANAGEMENT; WILLIAM WOODS;
JOE BROWNLEE; E. BROWNLEE, GR9693; Correction Officer HARMON;
Lieutenant IRWIN; and Sergeant RUFF,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-4-SJM-MPK

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The above-captioned pro se prisoner civil rights case was received by the Clerk
of Court on January 4, 2011. It was originally referred to Magistrate Judge Lenihan for
pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), and Local Civil Rules 72.C and D.
On June 22, 2011, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly.
ECF No. [20]. Judge Kelley’s Report and Recommendation [74], filed on February 17,
2012, recommends that the partial motion to dismiss [40] filed by the DOC Defendants
be granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff was allowed fourteen (14) days from the
date of service in which to file objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified

mail at SCI-Smithfield, where he is incarcerated. No objections to the Report and
Recommendation have been filed to date. After de novo review of the complaint and
documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following
order is entered:
AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2012;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [40] filed on behalf of the
DOC Defendants shall be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
follows:
1. The motion shall be GRANTED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claims arising out of medication distribution security procedures
and alleged medical malpractice and, accordingly, those claims shall be, and
hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice;
2. The motion shall be GRANTED insofar as it relates to Plaintiff’s claims
directed against the Department of Corrections and, accordingly, those claims
shall be, and hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice; and
3. The motion shall be DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [74], filed on
February 17, 2012 by Magistrate Judge Kelly, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

Sean J. McLaughlin
Sean J. McLaughlin
U.S. District Judge
cc:

COREY BRACEY
GS4754
SCI SMITHFIELD
1120 PIKE STREET
BOX 999
HUNTINGDON, PA 16652
Counsel of Record via CM-ECF
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly