MOSER v. JIN et al

Filing 135

ORDER adopting in part Report and Recommendations (Doc. 134 ). The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Robert D. Gilmore and Irma Vihlidal (Doc. 109) and Defendant Byunghak Jin (Doc. 116) are GRANTED. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, dated February 7, 2018, hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court, with a modification stated in the filing at this docket entry. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 3/7/18. (rdl)

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

DUSTIN MOSER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BYUNGHAK JIN, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15-1516
Judge Cathy Bissoon
Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
On February 7, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 134) recommending
that both Superintendent Gilmore and Administrator Vihlidal’s motion for summary judgment
(Doc. 109) and Dr. Jin’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 116) be granted. Service of the
Report and Recommendation was made, and no objections have been filed.
After a review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and
Recommendation, the following Order is entered:
The Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Superintendent Gilmore and Administrator
Vihlidal (Doc. 109) and Dr. Jin (Doc. 116) are GRANTED. The Report and Recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge, dated February 7, 2018, hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District
Court, with the following modification:
Plaintiff’s equal protection claim does not fail for the reason that he failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies but, rather, because he did not put forth any evidence demonstrating that

Defendants’ alleged failure to provide him with medical treatment amounts to a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. In his Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to assert
an equal protection “class of one” discrimination claim. (See Doc. 1-1 at 10-11). In order to
prove such a claim, Plaintiff must show that: (1) Defendants treated him differently than others
similarly situated; (2) Defendants did so intentionally; and (3) there is no rational basis for a
difference in treatment. See Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000). Upon
the Court’s review of the evidence of record, the Court finds no evidence demonstrating that
Defendants treated Plaintiff differently than other similarly-situated inmates, let alone that they
did so intentionally. For this reason, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants as to
Plaintiff’s equal protection claim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 7, 2018

s/Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All counsel of record
cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail):
DUSTIN MOSER
GJ-3837
S.C.I. Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

2