Murphy v. Grochowski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID N. MURPHY, SR., :

Plaintiff : CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-1404

v. : (MANNION, D.J.)

(SCHWAB, M.J.)

SCOTT M. GROCHOWSKI, et al., :

Defendants :

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court is the August 9, 2022 report of Judge

Schwab, (Doc. 153), which recommends that the motion for summary

judgment filed by the two remaining defendants, (Doc. 140), be denied.1 The

defendants who filed the pending motion are Pennsylvania State Police,

(“PSP”), Corporal John Chulock and PSP Sergeant Mark Rowlands. The

PSP defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to pro se

plaintiff David N. Murphy, Sr.’s claim that they failed to knock and announce

their presence before entering his home to execute a search warrant

involving a drug investigation. Specifically, it is recommended that PSP

defendants’ motion be denied regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s failure to

knock and announce 4th Amendment claim due to genuine disputes of

1The court notes that defendants Chulock and Rowlands jointly filed

their motion for summary judgment, Doc. 140, on September 13, 2021.

material facts. It is also recommended that the defendants’ contention that

they are entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff’s claim be denied.

Defendants requested an extension of time to file objections to Judge

Schwab’s report, and the court gave them until September 23, 2022. (Docs.

154 & 156). Nonetheless, to date, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants

filed objections to the report, and the time within which they were due has

expired.

The court has reviewed Judge Schwab’s report, and it will ADOPT IN

ITS ENTIRETY the report. Specifically, the court will DENY PSP defendants’

motion for summary judgment as to the merits of the plaintiff’s 4th

Amendment claim that they failed to knock and announce their presence

before entering his home pursuant to a search warrant. The court will also

DENY defendants’ motion with respect to their assertion of the qualified

immunity defense.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW2

When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of

a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of

the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.

2Since Judge Schwab states the appropriate standards with respect to

a summary judgment motion and with respect to a 4th Amendment knock and

announce claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the court will not repeat

them herein.

Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,

the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,

and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to

the extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.

Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no

objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept

the recommendation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see

also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp. 2d 465, 469

(M.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and

recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or

not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part,

the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.”[A] Report and Recommendation does not

have force of law unless and until the district court enters an order accepting

or [not accepting] it.” Garceran v. Morris County Prosecutors Office, 2015

WL 858106, *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2015) (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v.

N.J. Zinc Co., Inc., 828 F.2d 1001, 1005 (3d Cir. 1987)).

II. DISCUSSION3

Briefly, by way of background, on October 31, 2018, pursuant to an

Order from Judge Schwab, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the

instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging a violation of

his 4th Amendment rights by the defendants in relation to events regarding

the June 7, 2018 execution of a search warrant of his house by the PSP

SERT. (Doc. 16). The plaintiff was formerly an inmate at SCI Houtzdale, but

has now been released from prison, and is proceeding pro se in this matter.

(Doc. 152).4

The two remaining defendants, Rowlands and Chulock, filed a

summary judgment motion, (Doc. 140), with respect to plaintiff’s claim that

they failed to knock and announce their presence before entering his

Pottsville, Pennsylvania home pursuant to a search warrant. They argue

that the undisputed evidence shows that they announced their presence

3Since the full background of this case is stated in Judge Schwab’s

report, as well as the briefs of the parties, and in their statements of facts

regarding defendants’ dispositive motion, it shall not be fully repeated herein.

See also Murphy v. Grochowski, 2021 WL 3034010 (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2021).

4The court takes judicial notice of the Schuylkill County Court Criminal

Docket in plaintiff’s underlying criminal case, Commonwealth v. David

Norman Murphy, No. CP-54-CR-0001437-2018 (Schuylkill Cnty. Ct. Com.

Pl.). See also Exhibits previously submitted by defendants, Doc. 88-3. After

pleading guilty to manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to

manufacture or deliver a controlled substance, plaintiff was sentenced on

October 14, 2019 to a minimum of 54 months in prison and a maximum of

120 months. As stated above, plaintiff is no longer incarcerated.

before entering plaintiff’s house. Plaintiff testified that defendants failed to

knock and announce their presence.

No doubt that “[a]bsent exigent circumstances, police officers are

required to knock on the door of a dwelling and announce their presence

prior to entering.” Walke v. Cullen, 491 Fed.Appx. 273, 276 (3d Cir. 2012).

As the report explains in detail, the evidence is disputed as to whether

Chulock and Rowlands did knock and announce their presence a few

seconds before entering Murphy’s home, as they contend, based on

Murphy’s testimony that they did not. The report also indicates that “the

defendants did not explicitly argue that there were exigent circumstances

warranting entering Murphy’s home without knocking and announcing at

all.”

As such, the report recommends that the defendants’ motion for

summary judgment should be denied with respect to the merits of the

plaintiff claim that they violated his rights under the 4th Amendment by failing

to first “knock and announce” prior to entering his house. The court concurs

with the report’s analysis and finds that the defendants are not entitled to

summary judgment because the evidence, as detailed in the report, which

viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows that there remains

substantial questions of fact.

Thus, the report will be adopted regarding its recommendation that the

motion for summary judgment of Chulock and Rowlands be denied on the

merits of the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment claim.

Chulock and Rowlands also argue that they are entitled to qualified

immunity with respect to plaintiff’s 4th Amendment claim.5 “The protection of

qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official’s

error is a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed

questions of law and fact.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231. “The doctrine is

designed to ‘give[ ] government officials breathing room to make reasonable

but mistaken judgments by protect[ing] all but the plainly incompetent or

those who knowingly violate the law.’” Bryan v. United States of Am., 913

F.3d 356, 362 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). After conducting a thorough

analysis of this defense, the report concludes that defendants failed to

provide sufficient facts and evidence to show that the circumstances of the

entry to the plaintiff’s house justified dispensing with the knock-and-

5As Judge Schwab notes, since the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment should be denied on its merits based on the disputed evidence

regarding whether they violated plaintiff’s 4th Amendment rights, the court

must consider their final contention that they are entitled to qualified

immunity regarding this claim. Since the report states the correct legal

standard regarding qualified immunity, it shall not be repeated herein. See

also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (To determine whether the

individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the court must

analyze two factors: 1) whether the plaintiff has shown facts that make out a

constitutional rights violation, and if so, 2) whether those rights were “clearly

established” at the time of the incident.).

announce requirement. Based on the defendants’ failure to fully develop

their argument as to qualified immunity, the report finds that they have not

established this affirmative defense. See Burns v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 642

F.3d 163, 176 (3d Cir. 2011) (since qualified immunity is an affirmative

defense, “the burden of establishing [it] falls to the official claiming it as a

defense.”) (citation omitted).

The court concurs with the report’s conclusion and will adopt its

findings regarding qualified immunity, (Doc. 153 at 28-30). Therefore, the

court will deny the motion for summary judgment of Chulock and Rowlands

with respect to the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment claim against them on the basis

of qualified immunity.

III. CONCLUSION

The court has reviewed the recommended reasons for denying the

summary judgment motion of defendants Chulock and Rowlands, (Doc.

140), as to the merits of the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment claim, presented by

Judge Schwab in her report, (Doc. 153). Because the court agrees with the

sound reasoning that led Judge Schwab to the conclusions in her report and

finds no clear error in the record, the court will ADOPT the report in its

entirety. The court will DENY defendants’ summary judgment motion, (Doc.

140), as to the merits of the plaintiff’s stated claim in his amended complaint,

(Doc. 16). The court will also DENY the motion for summary judgment of

Chulock and Rowlands with respect to the plaintiff’s 4th Amendment claim

based on the qualified immunity defense. An appropriate order shall issue.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Dated: September 28, 2022

18-1404-04