CARTER v. PITCAIRN POLICE DEPARTMENT et al
Filing
49
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 47 Report and Recommendation dated 3/28/2019, as supplemented. Court finds that Plaintiff's objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The 31 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by the Borough of Monroeville is GRANTED. The Monroeville Police Defendants, as stated in the Opinion and Order, are DISMISSED. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Judge Marilyn J. Horan on 4/24/19. (rtw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANTHONY CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PITCAIRN POLICE OFFICER JOHN
DOE #1, MONROEVILLE POLICE
OFFICER JOHN DOE #2,
MONROEVILLE POLICE OFFICER
JOHN DOE #3, MONROEVILLE
POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE #4,
MONROEVILLE POLICE OFFICER
JOHN DOE #5, BOROUGH OF
PITCAIRN, PITCAIRN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, PITCAIRN CHIEF OF
POLICE JOHN DOE #6, BOROUGH
OF MONROEVILLE, MONROEVILLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT, and
MONROEVILLE CHIEF OF POLICE
JOHN DOE #7,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 18-0589
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This prisoner pro se civil rights case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.
On March 28, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (ECF No. 47), recommending
that the Borough of Monroeville’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) be granted on the grounds
that the claims against it are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. The parties
were informed that in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b0(1)(B) and
(C), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2, that Plaintiff had until April 16, 2019, to file any
objections. On April 18, 2019, the Court received the instant objections by Plaintiff, which are
dated April 12, 2019. (ECF No. 48). Under the prisoner mailbox rule, the Court will deem
Plaintiff’s objections as timely filed. For the reasons that follow, after de novo review, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
The Motion to Dismiss will be granted and the Report and Recommendation will be adopted as
the opinion of the Court, as supplemented herein.
The filing of timely objections requires the district judge to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). In
doing so, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and concludes that the recommendation to
grant the Motion to Dismiss is sound. The only involvement the Borough of Monroeville police
officers had with Plaintiff occurred on the date of his arrest, May 8, 2016. According to the
allegations of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asked to be taken to the hospital upon his arrest
because he,
had a gash on his head, dazed and confused, was unconscious and still bleeding .
. . [he] had a excruciating headache, his vision was blurred, could barely move,
couldn’t stand or walk straight. . . I should have been taken to a hospital for a CT
scan or MRI of my brain and I should’ve received stitches or staples.
Amended Complaint, ¶ 5. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff did not file his Amended Complaint, in which
he added the Borough of Monroeville and its police officers, until August 18, 2018, three months
2
after the statute of limitations period had run. Plaintiff’s argument, that his claims against the
Borough of Monroeville and its police officers are not barred “as long as the medical need
remained untreated”, Obj. at 2, is without merit. As the Report and Recommendation explains,
“the limitations period begins to run from the time the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of
the injury which is the basis of the section 1983 claim.” Genty v. Resolution Trust Corp., 937
F.2d 899, 919 (3d Cir. 1991).
Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s argument, that notice should be imputed to the
Borough of Monroeville because the Boroughs of Pitcairn and Monroeville are “closely related,”
is also without merit. The two boroughs do not share an attorney and filing suit against the
Borough of Pitcairn did not provide notice to the Borough of Monroeville.
For the reasons stated above, and after de novo review of the pleadings and documents in
the case, including the Motion to Dismiss and brief in support, and the brief in opposition, together
with the Report and Recommendation, and objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s
objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, the Motion
to Dismiss filed by the Borough of Monroeville will be granted and the Report and
Recommendation is adopted as the Opinion of the Court, as supplemented.
Defendants,
Monroeville Police Officer John Doe #2, Monroeville Police Officer John Doe #3, Monroeville
Police Officer John Doe #4, Monroeville Police Officer John Doe #5, the Borough of Monroeville,
the Monroeville Police Department, and the Monroeville Chief of Police John Doe #7, are
DISMISSED.
3
This matter will proceed based upon the claims raised in the Amended Complaint against
Pitcairn Police Officer John Doe #1, the Borough of Pitcairn, Pitcairn Police Department, and
Pitcairn Chief of Police John Doe #6. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2019
cc:
/s Marilyn J. Horan
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Court Judge
ANTHONY CARTER
167846
Allegheny County Jail
950 2nd Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
All counsel of record
(via ECF electronic notification)
4
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?