BROWN v. WOLF et al
Filing
556
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER adopting the June 1, 2022 553 Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court. Further ORDERED that Plaintiff's 530 Motion for TRO and Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 6/27/22. (rtw)
Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 556 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TOM WOLF, et. Al. ,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 16-cv-1081
MEMORANDUM OPINION and 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)(1)(A) and (B), and Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On June 1, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending denying Plaintiff Alton D. Brown’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 530). ECF No. 553. The
parties were informed that objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by June 15,
2022 for the electronically registered Defendants, and by June 21, 2022 for the non-electronically
registered party Plaintiff. Mr. Brown timely filed “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation Dated June 1, 2022.” ECF No. 555.
In his request for injunctive relief Mr. Brown asserts that he has learned that the medical
treatment he has been receiving for his cancer is meant only to prevent his cancer from worsening
and that Defendants never intended to attempt to cure his cancer. He alleges that Defendants are
applying preventive treatment in order to save the much higher costs of medical treatment
designed to cure cancer. He also alleges that Defendants are motived by a desire to retaliate
against Mr. Brown for his litigious behavior. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Mr.
1
Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 556 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 3
Brown’s Motion be denied because it raises the same injunctive relief requests already considered
at the February 23, 2021 preliminary injunction hearing and resolved by this Court in its August
12, 2021 Opinion and Order. ECF No. 447. In addition, the Magistrate Judge noted that the
issues raised by Mr. Brown are inextricably intertwined with resolution of the ultimate issues in
this case. In his Objections, Mr. Brown asserts that the Magistrate Judge has ignored his
arguments. He also argues that the issue he raised in his Motion, that he has a right to have his
cancer cured, has not been addressed by the Court.
In relation to Mr. Brown’s prior requests for injunctive relief the Court has considered the
parties’ profound disagreement as to Mr. Brown’s medical treatment. As stated in the Court’s
August 12, 2021 Opinion, the “deliberate indifference standard affords considerable latitude to
prison medical authorities in the diagnosis and treatment of the medical problems of inmate
patients, [and Courts] must disavow any attempt to second-guess the propriety or adequacy of
[their] particular course of treatment so long as it remains a question of sound professional
judgment.” Op. and Order, Aug. 12, 2021, at 13 (quoting Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850
F.3d 526, 538 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted)). Presently, Mr. Brown
raises a concern that Defendants are deliberately not attempting to cure his cancer and instead
choosing only to treat his cancer.
There is no evidence demonstrating that Defendants are able to cure Mr. Brown’s cancer
but have deliberately refused to do so. Mr. Brown implicitly acknowledges that it is unknown
whether his cancer is curable in his Proposed Order. Mr. Brown requests that the Court Order
Defendants to provide unbiased health care providers to determine “the feasibility of surgery for
the cure” of his prostate cancer and for Defendants to provide an evaluation to determine if his
2
Case 2:16-cv-01081-MJH-CRE Document 556 Filed 06/27/22 Page 3 of 3
cancer has spread too far to be cured. ECF No. 530-1, at 1. Mr. Brown’s present request for
injunctive relief therefore concerns a disagreement between Mr. Brown and the Defendants about
how he should be medically treated. As with his prior requests for injunctive relief, the available
evidence related to Mr. Brown’s current request “does not show that the Medical Defendants or
the Commonwealth Defendants have prevented or denied Mr. Brown from receiving appropriate
medical treatment.” Op. and Order, at 14. Thus, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation and will overrule Mr. Brown’s objections. Accordingly, injunctive relief was
properly denied.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of June 2022, following a de novo review of the relevant
pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and
Objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections do not undermine the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 553,
dated June 1, 2022, is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. Mr. Brown’s Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 555) is DENIED.
_s/Marilyn J. Horan
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Court Judge
cc:
Alton D. Brown, pro se
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
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?