The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALTON D. BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Civil No. 16-cv-1081
)
TOM WOLF, et. Al. , )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM ORDER
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial
proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Local
Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On June 21, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation, recommending denying Plaintiff Alton D. Brown’s Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (ECF No. 603). ECF No. 622. The parties were informed that objections to the Report
and Recommendation were due by July 6, 2024, for the electronically registered Defendants, and
by July 10, 2024, for the non-electronically registered party Plaintiff. After obtaining three
extensions of time to file, on September 8, 2023, Mr. Brown filed his “Appeal of Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 622).” ECF No. 648. For the reasons that follow, the Court
finds that Mr. Brown’s objections do not undermine the recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge.
The filing of timely objections requires the district judge to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In
1
doing so, the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3).
In this, his third motion seeking injunctive relief related to his medical care, Mr. Brown
requests that the Court “Order the Defendants to provide him with pain relief and medical care to
treat the adverse side-effects from the Hormone Therapy.” R. & R., at 5. The impetus for Mr.
Brown’s Motion arose from the medical decision to reduce his pain medication, even though Mr.
Brown’s pain levels due to the side effects of his hormone therapy have increased. Mr. Brown
objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as a whole. He asserts that the
Magistrate Judge erred in her consideration of the evidence, erred by failing to hold a hearing,
erred by failing to consider his medical conditions and symptoms and the Defendants’ responses
to the same, and erred by failing to consider evidence showing that the Defendants continue to fail
to adequately respond to his actual medical conditions and associated symptoms.
Mr. Brown raises essentially the same arguments (though he has added new facts and
arguments) in support of his request for injunctive relief as he did in his prior request for
preliminary injunctive relief. See ECF No. 530 (Motion), ECF No. 533 (Report and
Recommendation), and ECF No. 556 (Mem. Op. & Order). While there have been some changes
to Mr. Brown’s allegations in support of obtaining a preliminary injunction, as well as changes in
his medical conditions and symptoms, the Magistrate Judge is correct that Mr. Brown’s Motion
reflects an ongoing disagreement about medical care. The “deliberate indifference standard
affords considerable latitude to prison medical authorities in the diagnosis and treatment of the
2
medical problems of inmate patients, [and Courts] must disavow any attempt to second-guess the
propriety or adequacy of [their] particular course of treatment so long as it remains a question of
sound professional judgment.” Pearson v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 538 (3d Cir. 2017)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). As the Court stated in its resolution of Mr. Brown’s
two prior requests for injunctive relief related to his medical care, the available evidence “does
not show that the Medical Defendants or the Commonwealth Defendants have prevented or
denied Mr. Brown from receiving appropriate medical treatment.” Mem. Op. & Order, at 2, June
27, 2022, ECF No. 556; Op. and Order, at 14, Aug. 12. 2021, ECF No. 447. As the Court
recognized in its August 12, 2021 Opinion denying Mr. Brown’s first request for injunctive relief,
the current evidence suggests “a severe and profound disagreement and disconnect between the
Defendants’ attempts to treat Mr. Brown and Mr. Brown’s views of how he should be medically
treated.” Op. and Order, at 13, ECF No. 447. Then, as now, Mr. Brown alleges that the
Defendants are withholding appropriate medical treatment, and are inappropriately managing and
treating his side-effects and pain. Id. at 14. Significantly, Mr. Brown is unable to carry his
burden of proof to show that the extraordinary remedy of injunctive relief is warranted.
Accordingly, the Court will overrule Mr. Brown’s Objections and deny the Motion for
Preliminary Injunction.
Accordingly, the following Order is hereby entered.
3
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of February 2024, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 622, filed on June 21, 2023, is adopted as the Opinion of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Alton D. Brown’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
ECF No. 603, is DENIED.
_s/Marilyn J. Horan
Marilyn J. Horan
United States District Judge
Alton D. Brown, pro se
DL-4686
SCI Fayette
48 Overlook Drive
LaBelle, PA 15450-1050
4