GRAVES v. WETZEL et al
Filing
42
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 38 Report and Recommendations.; granting Defendants Ferdarko, Overmyer, and Wetzel 14 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Barbara Rothstein on 2/28/2017. (nk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1
2
3
4
5
JOHN GRAVES,
Civil Action No. 15-cv-205 (BJR)
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION.
v.
6
JOHN WETZEL, et al.,
7
8
Defendants.
9
10
11
12
13
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise
Baxter (Doc. No. 38), which recommends that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Wetzel,
Ferdarko, and Overymyer (Doc. No. 14) be granted.
After reviewing the Report and
14
15
16
Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections, and the relevant filings, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Baxter’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
17
Plaintiff, a pro se federal inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion
18
(SCI-Albion), brings this action against prison officials for alleged Eighth Amendment violations
19
relating to health issues affecting his legs and knee. (Doc. No. 3.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant
20
Nurse O’Rourke provided inadequate care, and that Defendants Ferdarko, Overmyer, and Wetzel
21
violated Plaintiff’s rights by denying his administrative grievance and appeals. (Id.) Defendants
22
23
24
Ferdarko, Overmyer, and Wetzel move to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege their
personal involvement in anything other than their participation in the grievance process.
25
1
1
2
Magistrate Judge Baxter recommends granting the Motion, and Plaintiff’s Objection does not
challenge her analysis. 1
3
Pro se pleadings, “however inartfully pleaded,” must be held to “less stringent standards
4
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). If
5
the court can reasonably read pleadings to state a valid claim on which the litigant could prevail,
6
7
it should do so despite failure to cite proper legal authority, confusion of legal theories, poor syntax
and sentence construction, or litigant’s unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. See Boag v.
8
9
MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364 (1982). A motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
10
Procedure 12(b)(6) must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and all the well-
11
pleaded allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
12
93-94 (2007). A complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6) if it does not allege
13
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
14
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
15
When a supervisory official is sued in a civil rights action, liability can be imposed only if
16
17
that official played an “affirmative part” in the complained-of misconduct. Chinchello v. Fenton,
18
805 F.2d 126, 133 (3d Cir. 1986). Here, the Complaint only alleges that the three Defendants were
19
involved in the grievance stage. The denial of a grievance does not amount to an affirmative
20
contribution to the alleged misconduct. See Rode v. Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1208 (3d Cir.
21
1988).
22
23
24
25
Instead, Plaintiff requests Defendant O’Rourke’s contact information so that he can properly serve his complaint
on her. An Objection to a Report & Recommendation discussing a Motion to Dismiss filed by other defendants is
not the appropriate medium for that request.
1
2
1
2
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
(1) The Report and Recommendation is adopted;
3
(2) The Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ferdarko, Overmyer, and Wetzel is
4
granted;
5
(3) The Clerk of the Court shall send copies of this Order to the parties.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated this 28th day of February, 2017.
8
9
10
11
Barbara Jacobs Rothstein
U.S. District Court Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?