# Brown v. Wetzel

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · July 25, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411988

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 25, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411988

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEITH BROWN, : Civil No. 1:21-CV-01828
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. :
:
JOHN WETZEL, et al., :
:
Defendants. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
ORDER
Before the court is the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommending that the court grant in part and
deny in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 68.) Specifically, Judge
Carlson opines that Plaintiff misconstrues the scope of supervisory constitutional
tort liability such that Defendants John Wetzel, Shannon Quegley, Kathy Brittain,
and S. Kephart should be dismissed from this action. (Id.) However, Judge
Carlson opines that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient at this stage as to
Defendant Karen Holly to survive a motion to dismiss. (Id.) Plaintiff generally
objects to the report and recommendation by rearguing his claims and disagreeing
with Judge Carlson’s conclusions. (Doc. 87.)
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.

Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009

WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Judge Carlson’s report and recommendation and
finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. Plaintiff’s
objections merely express disagreement with Judge Carlson’s analysis and attempt

to rehash or restate arguments already considered and rejected by Judge Carlson in
the thorough report and recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
THAT:

1) The report and recommendation, Doc. 68, is ADOPTED in its
entirety;
2) Plaintiff’s general objections, Doc. 87, are OVERRULED;
3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 28, is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
4) Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to
Defendants John Wetzel, Shannon Quegley, Kathy Brittain, and S.
Kephart.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Dated: July 25, 2022 Middle District of Pennsylvania

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411988. Public record. Not legal advice.