RIECO v. COLEMAN et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM ORDER DENYING 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order and DENYING 13 Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Judge Eddy. The Report and Recommendation dated May 27, 2014, is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court. Mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff this same day. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 07/01/2014. (lcb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DWAYNE L. RIECO,
Plaintiff,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
BRIAN COLEMAN, SCI-Fayette, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2: 14-cv-00351
District Judge Arthur J. Schwab

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 1) on March 18, 2014, and was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1),
and the Local Rules of Court.
On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order” (ECF No. 7). On May 27, 2014, the Magistrate
Judge filed a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion for Order to Show
Cause for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order be denied because Plaintiff
had failed to meet the necessary elements for the granting of a temporary restraining order (ECF
No. 8)
Plaintiff was advised that any Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due
by June 13, 2014. On June 17, 2014, the Court received a document entitled “Plaintiff’s
Reporting of Misconduct of Judge United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy” (ECF

1

No. 13), 1 in which Plaintiff appears to be lodging an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, but also raises several issues which are beyond the Complaint (i.e., papers are
not being notarized, “photocopies, citations, first class mail outgoing and incoming legal mail is
being seized,” “SCI-Pittsburgh officials are committing double jeopardy crimes . . . such as food
starvation, assaults, access to courts violations and are calling plaintiff a rapist,” “Plaintiff is
being denied meaningful access to the main law library”) and also seeks the disqualification of
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy. Additionally, on June 30, 2014, the Court received
“Plaintiff’s Affidavit in Support for an Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and or
TRO,” in which Plaintiff again complains about a number of things unrelated to the factual
claims in this lawsuit, but also states the following, which does appear to be related to this
lawsuit:
THE DEFENDANTS THEN MALICIOUSLY BY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
PLACED THIS DEFENDANT INVOLUNTARILY IN THE SSNU PROGRAM
TO FALSIFY MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS AND NO NOTICE WAS
GIVEN, NO HEARINGS, NO LAY ASSISTANCE, NO SECOND OPINION,
WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INVOLUNTARILY TREATMENT AND THERE IS
NO HEARING OFFICER, NO TRANSCRIPTURE, NO § 7301 OR § 7302
PETITION AND WAS NOT DEEMED A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT GRANTED ANY PROCEDURE DUE PROCESS BY
THE DEFENDANTS AND WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE 13.8.1 SSNU
SECTION 10 POLICY REVISED IN 2009.
(ECF No. 15).
To the extent that Plaintiff’s filings can be deemed objections to the Report and
Recommendation, the Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request to disqualify Magistrate Judge Eddy is

1

The envelope is post-marked June 16, 2014.
2

without merit and amounts to nothing more than his displeasure with the Court’s rulings which
do not warrant recusal. Securacomm Consulting, Inc. v. Securacom Inc., 224 F.3d 273, 278 (3d
Cir. 2000).
After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation, the “Objections” thereto, the Plaintiff’s Reporting of Misconduct
of Judge United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy (ECF No. 13), and Plaintiff’s
Affidavit in Support for an Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and or TRO (ECF
No. 15), the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 1st day of July, 2014;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Plaintiff Dwayne L. Rieco (ECF No. 7) is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 8) dated
May 27, 2014, is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Disqualify Judge Eddy (ECF
No. 13) is DENIED.
So ORDERED this 1st day of July, 2014.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:

All Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
DWAYNE RIECO
HU2494
PO Box 99991
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
3