HAYES v. GILMORE et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 23 and 25 Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 35 Report and Recommendations, with the modification that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice as it would be future to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to amend. The Clerk shall mark the docket closed. This Order was mailed to Plaintiff via first class mail this date at address of record. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5-29-18. (nam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEVEN J. HA YES,
Plaintiff,
V.

)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 17-1327
Judge Arthur J. Schwab
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly

)

ROBERT GILMORE, Facility Manager SCI
Greene, TRACEY SHAWLEY, Grievance
Officer SCI Greene , DOCTOR PILLAI,
Treating Psychiatrist SCI Greene, EARL
BAKER, RN SCI Greene, DAN KARPENCY,
RN SCI Greene , PSS WAINE, Treating Psych
SCI Greene, PSA LINDSEY, Treating Psych
SCI Greene, ADAM SEDLOCK, Treating
Psychologist SCI Greene, SHELLY
MANKEY, Unit Manager SCI Greene,
MAJOR CORO, Unit Major, SCI Greene, LT
STICKLES, Unit Brass SCI Greene, DORIN A
VARNER, (SOIGA) Central Office, ROBERT
MARSH, Chief Psych Central Office, and
JOHN/JANE DOES, to be named after review
of discovery documents. All named
defendants sued in both individual and official
capacity,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ARTHUR J. SCHWAB, United States District Judge
This prisoner civil rights suit was commenced by Plaintiff Steven J. Hayes, proceeding

prose, on October 16, 2017, and was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Maureen
P. Kelly for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(l), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. Thereafter, Motions to Dismiss
were filed on behalf of all Defendants, ECF Nos. 23 , 25, on the basis of Plaintiffs failure to state

any claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed his brief in opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss on March 22 , 2018.
On May 7, 20 I 8, Chief Magistrate Judge Kelly filed a Report and Recommendation, ECF
No. 35 , recommending that: (I) all claims against Defendants Gilmore, Sedlock, Mankey, and
Caro , be dismissed as a result of Plaintiff's failure to allege facts to support a finding that any of
these Defendants were personally involved in the alleged unconstitutional conduct at issue; (2)
all claims against Defendants Gilmore, Shawley, Sedlock, Varner, and Marsh be dismissed
because Plaintiff alleged that each is liable to him as a result of his or her participation in the
prison grievance process, and such involvement cannot give rise to the required finding of
personal involvement in the underlying alleged unconstitutional conduct; (3) all claims against
all DOC Defendants and Dr. Pillai be dismissed due to Plaintiff's failure to allege facts sufficient
to establish an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim; and, (4) Plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment failure to protect claim be dismissed against all Defendants because Plaintiff failed
to allege any facts upon which liability for deliberate indifference to his safety could be imposed.
Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") and
advised that any objections thereto were to be filed by May 31 , 2018. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed
his objections on May 25 , 2018. ECF Nos. 38.
Where, as here, objections have been filed , the court is required to make a de nova
determination about those p01iions of the R&R to which objections were made. See 28 U.S.C . §
636(b)(I); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition, as well as recei ve furth er evidence or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.

2

The Court finds that Plaintiffs objections do not undermine the recommendation of the
Chief Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff raises several objections, none of which require additional
comment. Plaintiffs objections are nothing more than a restatement of his initial arguments,
which were discussed and soundly rejected in the R&R. The Chief Magistrate Judge thoroughly
analyzed each of Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants and explained in detail why Plaintiffs
claims could not survive the motions to dismiss.
After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the
R&R, and the Objections thereto, the Court finds that the R&R should be adopted as the opinion
the Court, with modification to reflect that this Court finds that it would be futile to allow
Plaintiff the opportunity to amend, given the close monitoring and care provided to Plaintiff
throughout the period at issue. Under the circumstances alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff
received immediate and frequent medical and mental health assessment, care, and, when
indicated, treatment. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff will not be able to allege facts
sufficient to meet the stringent criteria for an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim
with regard to medical and/or mental health treatment, or for the alleged denial of protection for
Plaintiffs safety. Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 29 th day of May, 2018,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Lindsey,
Dorina Varner, Earl Baker, Robert Gilmore, Sitckles, Waine, Robert Marsh, Coro, Tracey
Shawley, Shelly Mankey, Dan Karpency, and Adam Sedlock, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Pillai,
ECF No. 25 , is GRANTED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 6, is DISMISSED with
prejudice, as it would be futi le to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to amend.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 35, is
ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, with the modification that Plaintiffs Complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(l) 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.

cc:

The Honorable Maureen P. Kelly
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
All counsel ofrecord by Notice of Electronic Filing
Steven J. Hayes
MQ-5447
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370

4