HAWKINS v. OLIVER et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM ORDER: AND NOW, this 22nd day of November 2024; IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order, ECF No. 43 , is denied. AND, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, issued on October 3, 2024, ECF No. 63 , is adopted as the opinion of the court. Signed by Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on 11/22/2024. (snc)

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

NICHOLE HAWKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORMER SUPERINTENDENT
OLIVER, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:23-CV-354

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This action was received by the Clerk of Court on December 8, 2023. The matter was
assigned and referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo, for report and
recommendation in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules
72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.
Plaintiff has filed a number of amended complaints. The operative complaint is the
Second Amended Complaint, docketed at ECF No. 61. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that
Defendants violated her constitutional rights and that she suffered from medical malpractice at
the hands of a private physician.
On July 29, 2024, Plaintiff moved for a restraining order requesting that Dr. Wagner
(who previously performed a hysterectomy) not be allowed to treat her and that she be allowed to
make toll-free calls to find a medical malpractice attorney. ECF No. 43.
On October 3, 2024, Judge Lanzillo issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order be denied. ECF No. 63.
Plaintiff filed Objections to that Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 63.

1

“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.’” EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866
F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Regardless of whether timely
objections are made, 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(D)(2). A district court is not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when
reviewing a recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636. See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed.
App’x 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (“District courts are not required to make any separate findings or
conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b). We presume that the District Court engaged in the required de novo review absent some
indication to the contrary. There is no such indication here because the District Court noted
Hill’s objections and stated that it reviewed the record independently.”) (internal citation
omitted).
After de novo review of the Second Amended Complaint and documents in the case,
together with the report and recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is
entered:

AND NOW, this 22nd day of November 2024;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order [ECF No. 43] is
denied.

2

AND, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Chief
Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, issued on October 3, 2024 [ECF No. 63] is adopted as the opinion of
the court.

/s/ Susan Paradise Baxter
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER
United States District Judge

3