SLOAN v. PITKINS et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM ORDER - it is hereby Ordered that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss [ECF No. 22 ] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Dupont is terminated from this case and Defendant Sroka is terminated from this case. It is furt her Ordered that, pursuant to the authority granted by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe are dismissed, and said Defendants are terminated from this case. Because Defendants' moti on was treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's motion for Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) relief [ECF No. 25 ] is DENIED as moot; 30 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated 8/25/2014, is adopted as the opinion of the court, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 9/30/2014. (dlg)

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

AARON SLOAN,
Plaintiff,
V.

DAVID PITKINS, et al,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. 13-104 Johnstown

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This prisoner civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on May 16, 2013, and
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

for report and

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and Rules
72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, filed on August 25,2014, recommended that Defendants' partial motion to
dismiss [ECF No. 22] be granted in part and denied in part, as follows:
I.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim against Defendant Dupont be GRANTED and
Defendant Dupont be terminated from this case accordingly;

2.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs supervisory liability claim against
Defendants Pitkins , Rozum, and Sroka, insofar as it relates to their
failure to respond to and/or investigate Plaintiffs grievances, be
GRANTED and Defendant Sroka be terminated from this case
accordingly;

3.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs failure to protect claim against
Defendants Pitkins and Rozum be DENIED and said claim should
be allowed to proceed beyond the pleading stage; and

4.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs conspiracy claim and his state
tort claims be GRANTED.

It was further recommended that, pursuant to the authority granted by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe be
dismissed, and said Defendants be terminated from this case.
Because Defendants' motion was treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs motion for Fed.R.Civ.P. 56( d) relief [ECF No. 25]
should also be denied as moot. Service was made on Plaintiff by mail at SCI Somerset, where he
is incarcerated, and on Defendants. Objections were filed by the Plaintiff on September 10, 2014.
After de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the report and
recommendation and objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this

30+h Day of September, 2014;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' partial motion to dismiss [ECF No. 22] is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:
1.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim against Defendant Dupont is GRANTED and
Defendant Dupont is terminated from this case;

2.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs supervisory liability claim against
Defendants Pitkins , Rozum, and Sroka, insofar as it relates to their
failure to respond to and/or investigate Plaintiffs grievances, is
GRANTED and Defendant Sroka is terminated from this case;

3.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs failure to protect claim against
Defendants Pitkins and Rozum is DENIED and said claim will be
allowed to proceed beyond the pleading stage; and

4.

The motion to dismiss Plaintiffs conspiracy claim and his state
tort claims is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority granted by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe are

dismissed, and said Defendants are terminated from this case.
Because Defendants' motion was treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff's motion for Fed.R.Civ.P. 56( d) relief [ECF No. 25] is
DENIED as moot.
The report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter, dated August 25, 2014, is
adopted as the opinion of the court.

'

KIM R. GIBSON
United States District Judge

cc:

Susan Paradise Baxter
U.S. Magistrate Judge
all parties of record __