HILL v. BARNACLE et al

Filing 109

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that, for reasons more fully stated within, Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 108 , which the Court has construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, is denied; that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of t he Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if any party wishes to appeal from this Order a notice of appeal, as provided in Fed. R. App. P. 3, must be filed with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, at 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, within (30 days. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/15/17. (jg)

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

DONNA M. HILL
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES BARNACLE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 13-1604

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Donna M. Hill filed this pro se civil rights action against Defendants James
Barnacle, Steven Glunt, David Close, Kenneth R. Hollibaugh, Captain Brumbaugh, and Heather
Moore on November 7, 2013, (Docket No. 1), and the case was assigned to United States
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.G.

On May 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge

Mitchell issued a report and recommendation, (Docket No. [103]), wherein he recommended that
Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment, (Docket No. [68]), be granted. Service
was made by ECF, and a copy of the report and recommendation and notice of electronic filing
was sent to Plaintiff at her address of record on May 24, 2017. Objections to the report and
recommendation for ECF users were due by June 7, 2017, and objections to the report and
recommendation for unregistered ECF users were due by June 12, 2017. No objections were

filed. On June 14, 2017, after conducting a de novo review of this matter, the Court adopted the
report and recommendation, granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering
that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. (See Docket Nos. [105],
[106], [107]). Later that day, the Clerk of Court received Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, (Docket No. [108]), which were postmarked on June 12, 2017. Because the
Court has previously adopted the report and recommendation, it will construe Plaintiff’s
Objections as a Motion for Reconsideration.
Having conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s brief and attached exhibits, (Docket
No. [108]), Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, as she has not demonstrated that
the Court must “‘correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’”
Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (quoting Harsco Corp. v.
Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)). Plaintiff asserts that she received an incomplete
copy of the report and recommendation, “which was only (24) twenty-four pages and ended mid
sentence.” (Docket No. 108 at 5). Although the Court is unable to verify whether Plaintiff’s
statement is accurate, the report and recommendation was only twenty-six pages. (Docket No.
[103]). Page twenty-five included Magistrate Judge Mitchell’s conclusion that Plaintiff had
failed to show any personal involvement on the part of Defendants Barnacle, Hollibaugh, and
Moore, and page twenty-six included Magistrate Judge Mitchell’s signature. (Id. at 25-26).
Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff is contending that she has been prejudiced because she received
an incomplete copy of the report and recommendation, the Court finds that her argument is
without merit.
Plaintiff’s remaining objections relate to issues that have previously been addressed, such

as her assertions that Magistrate Judge Mitchell repeatedly made credibility assessments in
Defendants’ favor, coached Defendants, and minimized her discovery concerns, (see Docket
Nos. [64], [97]), or fail to establish that there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law, that new evidence is available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
prevent a manifest injustice. See Max’s Seafood Café, 176 F.3d at 677 (“A court may grant a
motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows: (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence which was not available when the court
issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest
injustice.”).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 15th day of June, 2017,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, (Docket No. [108]), which the Court has construed as a Motion for
Reconsideration, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, if any party wishes to appeal from this Order a notice of appeal, as
provided in Fed. R. App. P. 3, must be filed with the Clerk of Court, United States District Court,
at 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, within thirty (30) days.

s/Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge

cc/ecf: Robert C. Mitchell
U.S. Magistrate Judge
All counsel of record

Donna M. Hill
1110 Steuben St.
Apt. 213
Pittsburgh, PA 15220