IMES v. WINGARD et al

Filing 86

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment; 81 Report and Recommendation dated 2/21/2017 is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court; denying 83 Motion to Appoint Counsel. It is further Ordered that the Clerk of Court mark this case CL OSED. And it is further Ordered that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) 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, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 4/18/2017. (dlg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TOSHMINGO H. IMES,
Plaintiff,
V.

TREVOR A. WINGARD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3: 15-cv-0242
United States District Judge
Kim R. Gibson

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case was commenced on September 21, 2105, and was 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)(l), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. The
magistrate judge initially denied Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis for failure to
include the appropriate financial documentation, but the motion was later granted upon
Plaintiffs compliance with the statutory requirements. (ECF Nos. 1, 8, 9, and 11 ).
After the close of discovery, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in which
they argue that (i) Plaintiffs due process claim fails because placement in the Security Threat
Group Management Unit (STGMU) did not trigger a liberty interest and (ii) Plaintiff cannot
show that he was subjected to a sufficiently serious deprivation required for an Eighth
Amendment violation.
On February 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge Eddy filed a Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 81) recommending that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted.
Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 82).

Since the

filling of the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel,
with brief in support. (ECF No. 83 and 84).
Plaintiff's objections are articulate and well written; however, the Court finds that the
objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Despite Plaintiffs
frustration and objections to be being placed in the STGMU, as the Report and Recommendation
explained, neither his placement in the STGMU nor the conditions of confinement he
experienced while in the STGMU violated the Constitution.
Plaintiffs request for appointment of counsel will be denied. Throughout this litigation,
Plaintiff has submitted coherent, well written, and articulate pleadings, which have demonstrated
his ability to handle the legal and factual issues in this case.
After de nova review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the
Report and Recommendation, and the Objections thereto, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this

18 1~ay of April, 2017:

1.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF NO. 68) is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 83) is DENIED; and

2.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No.

81) dated February 21, 2017, is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
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 Proced\e.

l/,J-::

~

~t~

Kim R. Gibson
United States District Judge

cc:

TOSHMINGO H. IMES
275 Green Street
Apt 5-D7
Beverly, NJ 08010
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Mary Lynch Friedline
Office of Attorney General
(via ECF electronic notification)

3