JACKSON v. FOLINO et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 31 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Dr. Bjunghak Jin and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and joined by the Department of Corrections Defendants 39 ; granting 47 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Dr. Bjunghak Jin and Wexford Health Sources, Inc.; and adopting Report and Recommendations re 55 dated August 3, 2016. The Clerk of Court mark this case closed. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 08/19/2016. (bsc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHANIEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,

15cv0457
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.
SUPERINTENDENT FOLINO,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 55)
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Nathaniel Jackson’s objections to the
August 3, 2016, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy,
which recommended that (i) the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Dr.
Bjunghak Jin and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Doc No. 31), which the Department of
Corrections Defendants has joined (Doc. 39), be granted because Plaintiff did not fully exhaust
his administrative remedies pursuant to the PLRA and (ii) the Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings filed by Defendant Dr. Bjunghak Jin and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Doc. No. 47)
be granted.
The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Objections do not undermine the recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge as to the disposition of this action. The R&R concluded that Plaintiff’s
attempts to seek final review from SOIGA were not thwarted by any delay that may have
occurred at SCI-Greene. The record is clear that Plaintiff’s final appeals were not dismissed on
the basis of untimeliness, but rather were dismissed because he had not met all the necessary
prerequisites to properly appealing his grievances to SOIGA. The R&R correctly concluded

that Plaintiff’s failure to submit the proper paperwork to SOIGA resulted in his failure to fully
exhaust his administrative remedies.
In his objections, Plaintiff states that the “defendants failed to attach a copy of the
rejected grievance and rejection form with their motion for summary judgment and therefore the
plaintiff’s version of this should be controlling.” This statement is not correct. Exhibit A to
Defendants’ brief in support of their motion for summary judgment is a copy of SOIGA’s entire
file relating to grievance numbers 454987 and 457879. While the file does not contain the actual
original grievances, the file does contain the Facility Manager’s Appeal Responses and the Final
Appeal Decisions. Further, the grievance file reflects that it was explained to Plaintiff that if he
“did not have a legible copy of the initial grievance, [he] could have requested one through the
Facility Grievance Coordinator.” The record is clear that Plaintiff made no attempt to
subsequently provide the required documentation for either grievance.
Plaintiff also incorrectly states that he was never given an order by the magistrate judge
to respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The docket reflects that by Order of
May 13, 2016 (Doc. No. 49), the magistrate judge ordered Plaintiff to respond to the motion for
judgment on the pleadings by June 15, 2016. The Court has no reason to believe that this Order
was not received by Plaintiff. Further, even assuming arguendo, that Plaintiff had not received
the Response Order, the granting of the motion remains appropriate as Plaintiff is unable to cure
the deficiencies of his negligence claim.

A certificate of merit must be filed with the complaint

or within sixty days after the filing of a complaint. Plaintiff was notified of this requirement by
correspondence from defense counsel dated March 18, 2016. The time for filing an appropriate
certificate of merit has long passed.

-2-

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant
Dr. Bjunghak Jin and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Doc No. 31), which the Department of
Corrections Defendants have joined (Doc. No. 39) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by
Defendant Dr. Bjunghak Jin and Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (Doc. No. 47) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 55)
dated August 3, 2016 is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of August, 2016.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Court Judge

cc:

NATHANIEL JACKSON
HJ-2123
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
ECF registered counsel of record

-3-