WALTON v. HARKLEROAD et al
Filing
54
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 53 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by FRANK NUNEZ, RAMIREZ, GRIBBLE, JOHNSON, ERIC GREGO, BAKER, SHRADER, GOULD, CRAINE, BARBIER, SMITH, HARKLEROAD, TONY, S. KARANSKI, RAMB, 32 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by FRANK NUNEZ, RAMIREZ, GRIBBLE, JOHNSON, ERIC GREGO, BAKER, SHRADER, GOULD, CRAINE, BARBIER, SMITH, HARKLEROAD, TONY, S. KARAN SKI, RAMBLER. Having reviewed de novo the pleadings in this case relevant to Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint together with the August 15, 2014 Report and Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Eddy, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that t he Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation [ECF #53], dated August 15, 2014, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. It is further hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF#32] is DENIED with respect to Count III of Plaintiffs Complaint. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 9/2/14. (bfm )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARCUS WALTON,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
vs.
)
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER
WALTON, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 13-1109
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On July 31, 2013, the Clerk of Courts for the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania received from Plaintiff Marcus Walton a Complaint; neither the filing
fee nor a motion to proceed in forma pauperis was included with the Complaint. On August 1,
2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to proceed informa pauperis; the Motion was granted on
September 20, 2013 and Plaintiffs Complaint was filed. The Complaint contains three (3)
counts: (l) an Eighth Amendment violation for failure to protect (Count I); (2) an alleged
violation of his procedural due process rights (Count II); and (3) an alleged tort of
conversion/violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment associated with
two separate occurrences involving deprivation of his personal property (Count III).
On December 5,2013, Defendants filed an Answer and Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings [ECF #32] . On March 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed several documents in opposition to the
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On August 14,2014, Magistrate Judge Eddy filed an
Order wherein she denied without prejudice to be refiled as a Motion for Summary Judgment
that part of the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings wherein they argued that
Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to Counts I and II of the
Complaint. On August 15,2014, Magistrate Judge Eddy issued a Report and Recommendation
("R&R") in which she recommended that the Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
be denied with respect to Count III of the Complaint. The first basis for her recommended denial
was that it was premature to dismiss Plaintiff's claim regarding the deprivation of his property
during his transfer from MCF to SCI- Greene in May of 20 11 based upon a statute of limitations
argument. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, p. 11. The second basis for her
recommended denial was that with respect to Plaintiff's claim regarding the deprivation of his
property in January of 2013, Defendants argued that they are entitled to sovereign immunity with
respect to this part of Plaintiff's claim, and Plaintiff "appears to dispute whether the Defendants
were acting within the scope of their duties" such that a material fact remains to be resolved."
Id. at p. 12. Finally, the magistrate judge reasoned that Defendants' Motion had to be denied
with respect to Count III of the Complaint because Defendants contended that Plaintiff had failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the Fourteenth Amendment relative to the
January 2013 confiscation of property because Plaintiff took advantage of the prison grievance
procedure with respect to the property in question and therefore, the claim was barred as a matter
of law, but that "a plaintiff may dispute whether the post-deprivation process is meaningful, ...
and thus, it would be inappropriate to dismiss this claim before giving Plaintiff an opportunity to
do so under the circumstances." Id. at p. 13.
Rule n(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "The district judge must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected
to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
2
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id. Objections to the
R&R were due no later than August 29, 2014. To date, no objections have been filed.
We have reviewed de novo the pleadings in this case relevant to Count III of Plaintiffs
Complaint together with the August 15,2014 Report and Recommendation from Magistrate
Judge Eddy. Having done so, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this
').."fay of September, 2014, it is HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
AND DECREED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF #53], dated
August 15, 2014, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.
It is further hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the Defendants'
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF#32] is DENIED with respect to Count III of
Plaintiffs Complaint.
"H&r~!. ~~J~
MaiCeB:COhill, Jr.
Senior District Court Judge
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?