Cummings v. Weller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM CUMMINGS, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:22-1119

v. : (JUDGE MANNION)

WELLER, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

Pending before the court is the February 21, 2023, report of Judge

Carlson, (Doc. 33), which recommends the court deny Plaintiff William

Cummings’s motion requesting an emergency hearing and a preliminary

injunction forbidding the defendants and other correctional personnel from

transferring him from SCI Frackville to another correctional facility, (Doc.

158). Cummings timely filed an objection to the report, which urges this court

to not adopt the report and to grant Cummings his requested relief. (Doc.

34).

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.

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)). In any case, 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, No. 14–

2135 (CCC-MF), 2015 WL 858106, at *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)).

Since the report delineates the procedural and factual background of

this case, it will not be fully repeated herein. (See Doc. 33 at 1). In short, this

is a pro se prisoner lawsuit in which Cummings brings claims against

correctional personnel protesting the conditions of his confinement at SCI

Frackville. Judge Carlson’s report judiciously reviewed Cummings’s request

for injunctive relief, noting the request to halt his transfer from SCI Frackville

was particularly paradoxical given Cummings’s suit principally concerns his

alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the same prison. After

outlining the exacting legal standards under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure against which requests for preliminary injunctions are

judged, Judge Carlson found each factor courts must consider weigh against

granting Cummings this extraordinary relief.

Specifically, Judge Carlson found: (1) Cummings has not shown a

likelihood of success on the merits of his claims because he has no

constitutional right to choose his prison, and it is well-established that inmate

transfer decisions, standing alone, do not constitute cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States

Constitution; (2) Cummings has not demonstrated irreparable harm since a

prison transfer may, according to Cummings’s allegations, ameliorate the

harm he claims he faces at SCI Frackville; and (3) the balancing of other

interests weighs against granting a preliminary injunction because, in the

prison context, “the defendants’ interests and the public’s interest in

penological order could be adversely affected if the Court began dictating

the transfer or treatment for the plaintiff, one inmate out of thousands treated

in [Pennsylvania’s] prison system.” (Doc. 33 at 7–11).

Cummings filed objections to the report, a small portion of which

address the report directly; the vast majority of which have a tenuous

relationship with the report or the motion it addresses. In the relevant section

of Cummings’s objections, he argues the preliminary injunction factors weigh

in his favor because: (1) he has shown a likelihood of success since he “was

sabotaged regarding an A/C appeal”; (2) he will be irreparably harmed since

his “[First and Fourteenth Amendment] rights will be irreparably injured” by

the prison transfer; (3) he “sees no harm whatsoever coming to the moving

party by granting” him the preliminary injunction; and (4) the public interest

prong weighs in his favor since “there is clearly no public interest” in

correctional staff trampling on Cummings’s First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. (Doc. 34). The court will overrule these objections since they do not

demonstrate any error in the report’s weighing of the relevant factors, and

the court agrees with the sound reasoning of Judge Carlson therein.1

The court has considered the findings of Judge Carlson’s report and

finds no clear error of record. Moreover, the court agrees with the sound

reasoning which led Judge Carlson to the conclusions in his report. As such,

the court will adopt the report and recommendation in its entirety.2

1 The rest of Cummings’s objections contain repeated protestations

regarding correctional staff’s handling of his appeal of the decision to transfer

him and “the decision to place him on A/C status”—a decision which

Cummings’s avers is “the main issue” in his request for a preliminary

injunction, (see Doc. 34 at 3). To the extent these objections are relevant to

the motion at issue in Judge Carlson’s report, the court will overrule them

because they in no way demonstrate error in Judge Carlson’s reasoning or

conclusion that Cummings is not entitled to judicial intervention in his prison

transfer.

2 The docket reveals Cummings filed another motion for a preliminary

injunction on March 20, 2023, (Doc. 35), in which Cummings requests an

injunction from this court directing his transfer back to SCI Frackville. For the

same reasons delineated in Judge Carlson’s report, (Doc. 33), the court finds

Cummings has not demonstrated by any measure that he is legally entitled

to the extraordinary relief he requests. Accordingly, the court will deny the

request.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(1) The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 33), is

ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the court.

(2) Cummings’s motion for an emergency hearing and preliminary

injunction, (Doc. 27), is DENIED.

(3) Cummings’s second motion for a preliminary injunction, (Doc.

35), is DENIED.

(4) This case if referred back to Judge Carlson for further case

management.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

DATE: April 4, 2023

21-1119-01