standard of review when no timely and specific objections are filed
How later courts described this case
- standard of review when no timely and specific objections are filed
- holding that, under 28 U.S.C. §1915, a court must grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NIARE LAMAR BROWN, )
Plaintiff,
VS. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-124
) District Judge Stephanie L. Haines
S.C.I. LAUREL HIGHLANDS, et al. ) Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto
Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This is a civil rights case brought by Plaintiff Niare Lamar Brown (‘Plaintiff’), an inmate
at S.C.l. Laurel Highlands. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for
proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S. C. § 636, and Local Civil
Rule 72.D.
On October 21, 2022, Magistrate Judge Pesto issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 10) recommending that Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 2) should be dismissed. Specifically,
Magistrate Judge Pesto recommended that the claims against Defendant S.C.I. Laurel Highlands
should be dismissed without leave to amend, as Defendant S.C.I. Laurel Highlands is not a person
amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. §1983. However, Magistrate Judge Pesto recommended that
Plaintiff's Eighth and First Amendment claims against the remaining prison staff Defendants
should be dismissed with leave to amend. Plaintiff was advised that, as a non-ECF user, his
objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) were due on November 7, 2022.
Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.
Upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) under the
applicable “reasoned consideration” standard, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100
- d
(3d Cir. 2017) (standard of review when no timely and specific objections are filed), and pursuant
to Local Civil Rule 72.D.2, the Court will accept in whole the findings and recommendations of
Magistrate Judge Pesto in this matter, as amended herein.
Magistrate Judge Pesto correctly states that Plaintiff cannot maintain a Section 1983 claim
against Defendant S.C.I. Laurel Highlands. Magistrate Judge Pesto also correctly determined that
Plaintiff fails to sufficiently state his Eighth Amendment excessive force and harassment claims
and his First Amendment retaliation claims against the remaining prison staff Defendants, but that
it is not clear that amendment of these claims would be futile at this time. See Grayson v. Mayview
State Hosp. 293 F. 3d 103, 114 (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that, under 28 U.S.C. §1915, a court must
grant a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint unless amendment would be inequitable or futile).
Though Plaintiff failed to amend his claims within the time to do so under Magistrate Judge Pesto’s
Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10), the Court will grant Plaintiff additional time to amend
his claims and will order Plaintiff to file his amended complaint on or before January 3, 2023 in
accordance with this Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the following order is entered:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1‘ day of December, 2022, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge
Pesto’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10), which is adopted as the Opinion of the Court
as amended herein, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs claims in his Complaint (ECF No. 2) against
Defendant S.C.]. Laurel Highlands are DISMISSED with prejudice; and,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's remaining claims in the Complaint (ECF No.
2) are DISMISSED without prejudice; and,
>
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint
on or before January 3, 2023.
Stephanie L. Haines
“ United States District Judge