JAMES v. SAUERS et al

Filing 187

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 181 . The Commonwealth Defendants summary judgment motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs retaliation and Eight Amendment claim based on the revocation of Plaintiffs Z-code status, and DENIED as to Plaintiffs excessive force and Eight Amendment claim based on delay of medical treatment. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 3/5/18. (hr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES,
Plaintiff,

Civil Action No. 14-69

v.
SAUERS, et al,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

Defendants.

Plaintiff, an inmate in state custody, filed this civil rights action against Defendants
Filtenburger, ASP, Crowder, Tice, Hollis, Sauers, Wilson, Cole, Overmyer, Murn, Gadley, Puhl,
Ennis, Apadac, Repco, Simons, and Heberling (“the Commonwealth Defendants”). Plaintiff
alleges that the Commonwealth Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights under the
First, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments. He further alleges that the Commonwealth Defendants
took retaliatory action against him for submitting grievances and threating to file a lawsuit. 1
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. However, several claims remained following
resolution of the motion to dismiss. The parties completed discovery and the Commonwealth
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff cannot maintain his retaliation
and Eighth Amendment claims.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this matter on January 30,
2018. Dkt. No. 181. In it, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the summary judgment motion
be granted as to Plaintiff’s retaliation and Eight Amendment claims based on the revocation of
Plaintiff’s Z-code status, but denied as to the excessive force and Eighth Amendment claim based

1

He also alleges that he was retaliated against for refusing to assault another inmate despite being asked to commit
the assault by Defendant Heberling.

on delay of medical treatment.
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the record, and all other materials before
the Court, and no objection being filed, it is hereby ordered that:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED;

(2)

The Commonwealth Defendants’ summary judgment motion is GRANTED as to
Plaintiff’s retaliation and Eight Amendment claim based on the revocation of
Plaintiff’s Z-code status, and DENIED as to Plaintiff’s excessive force and Eight
Amendment claim based on delay of medical treatment; and

(3)

The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this Order to Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 3rd day of March 2018.

BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE