BASHAM v. PA. BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss. Motion to Dismiss is granted as to defendant BOARD SECRETARY KIMBERLY BARKLEY and denied in all other respects and further adopting 20 Report and Recommendation of Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan as the opinion of the Court. Signed by Judge David S. Cercone on 7/11/14. (njt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DOUGLAS BASHAM,
Plaintiff,
V.

PAROLE AGENT RONALD FINE,
PAROLE AGENT JOHN DOE,
BOARD SECRETARY KIMBERLY
BARKLEY,
Defendants.

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

2:13cv351
Electronic Filing
Judge Cercone
Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan

MEMORANDUM ORDER

The pro se Complaint in the above captioned case was received by the Clerk of Court in
March, 2013, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(l), and Local
Rules of Court 72.C and 72.D. The Complaint was amended in October, 2013 (ECF No. 13).
The June 5, 2014, Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20) recommended that the
Defendants' April17, 2014, Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for Failure to
State a Claim (ECF No. 18) be granted as to dismissal of the claims against Defendant Barkley
as a finding in Plaintiffs favor as to any such claims made (or potentially made under the facts
set forth in the Complaint) would necessarily call Plaintiffs parole revocation into question and
such claims are therefore barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Report
further recommended that, despite Plaintiffs failure to file a response in accordance with the
Court's April 18, 2014, Text Order, the remainder ofthe Motion nonetheless be denied and that
the case proceed to the summary judgment stage.
Service was made on all counsel of record. The parties were informed that in accordance
with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 ofthe Local

Rules of Court, that they had fourteen (14) days to file any objections. No objections have been
filed, the time for objection has now expired, and Defendants have subsequently filed Answers in
this case (ECF Nos. 20, 21 ).
Accordingly, after review of the pleadings and documents in the case, including the
Report and

Recommendation,~

following Order is entered:

AND NOW, this _1_\ ~y of July, 2014,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 18) filed by

Defendants is GRANTED as to dismissal of the claims against Defendant Barkley and DENIED
in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the June 5, 2014, Report and Recommendation of

Chief Magistrate Judge Lenihan is adopted as the Opinion ofthe Court.

David Stewart Cercone
United States District Judge
cc:

Honorable Lisa Pupo Lenihan
John C. Manning, Esquire
(Via CMIECF Electronic Mail)
Douglas E. Basham
109 E. Marigold Street, Apt #5
Munhall, PA 15120
(Via First Class Mail)

2