WILLIAMS v. ARMEL et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 293 ) are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation 288 is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; that the above-captioned Defendants' Motion to D ismiss for Failure to State a Claim 146 is granted, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in his Second Amended Complaint 99 are dismissed, with prejudice, for the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation; that the Clerk shall mark this case closed. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 2/14/18. (jg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MR. ERIC ARMEL, DEPUTY WARDEN;
MR. KEITH GRAFT, CORRECTIONS
OFFICER (ONE); MR. WESLEY TIFT,
CAPTAIN; MS RHONDA HOUSE,
GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR; WILLIAM
LOWDEN, LIEUTENANT; MR. JAMES C.
BARNACLE, DIRECTOR; JOHN E.
WETZEL, SECRETARY; AND JAY LANE,
Civil Action No. 16-1233
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer
Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Mark-Alonzo Williams’ Objections
(Docket 293) to the Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
entered on December 28, 2017. (Docket 288). The R&R recommends granting the abovecaptioned Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and denying Plaintiff leave
to file a Third Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 146).1 Service of the R&R was made on all
parties. On February 13, 2018, the Court received Plaintiff’s timely Objections to the R&R, which
total thirty-four pages. (Docket 293).2 Therein, Plaintiff concedes that the R&R properly
The Court previously dismissed Defendant Peter Saavedra from this case on September 8, 2017
because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against him, and subsequently denied
Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration relating to same. (Docket Nos. 225, 250, 258, 264).
Although Plaintiff also labels this document as a Motion for Reconsideration of the R&R, it is
properly evaluated as being Objections under the de novo standard of review set forth in 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 (b). In any event, Plaintiff fails demonstrate a valid
basis for reconsideration of the R&R, as he identifies no intervening change in the law or new evidence that
was no available when the R&R was issued, and likewise fails to point to a clear error of law which must
recommended dismissal of his “Fourteenth Amendment Deprivation of Due Process Claim”
against Defendant Lane; “Fourteenth Amendment Deprivations Inflicted by All Defendants
[Claims]”; and “Deprivation of Personal Property [Claim(s)].” (Id. at pp. 31-32) (punctuation in
original). But, he objects to her recommendation that the Court dismiss his First Amendment
retaliation claims; his Eighth Amendment claims for sexual harassment, conditions of
confinement, and denial of adequate medical care; and his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
and Equal Protection claims against Defendant House. (Id. at pp. 2-31). In doing so, Plaintiff
lodges a series of disrespectful and meritless accusations against Judge Lenihan, including that she
purposely used “deceitful rhetoric” in her R&R in order “to manipulate the District Judge,”
“bolster her agenda,” and obtain a “well-crafted basis for dismissal irregardless [sic] of the merits.”
(See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 19-34, 40).
In resolving a party’s objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of any part of the
R&R that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition, as well as receive further
evidence or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id. Upon careful de novo
review of the Second Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the parties’ briefs
filed in connection with the Motion, the R&R, and Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court concludes that
the Objections do not undermine the R&R’s recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Court
enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 2018,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Docket No. ) are
OVERRULED, and the R&R (Docket No. ) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
be rectified in order to prevent manifest injustice. Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim (Docket ) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants
in his Second Amended Complaint (Docket No. ) are DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, for
the reasons set forth in the R&R.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED.
/s/ Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.
SCI Camp Hill
P.O. Box 8837
Camp Hill, PA 17001
(via regular mail)
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?