The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SHAQUILLE DUGAN, )
)
) No. 2:23-cv-01637-RJC-CBB
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) District Judge Robert J. Colville
)
SCI GREENE; SUPERINTENDANT ) Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown
MICHAEL ZAKEN; S. BUZAS, Deputy
Facility Management; MAJOR M. )
)
MALANOSKI; UNIT MANAGER JASON
)
DICK; SHIELD # SRG. JAY CARTER;
)
MACCRACKEN, Shield # LT. 6 TO 7 RHO,
)
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER OF COURT
Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 62) filed
by the Honorable Christopher B. Brown in the above-captioned matter. Judge Brown’s May 7,
2025 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motions for
Emergency Injunctive Relief (ECF Nos. 48, 51). Objections to the Report and Recommendation
were due by May 27, 2025. No objections were filed. However, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend
his Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief. ECF No. 66. The Court considers this matter to be
ripe for disposition.
“The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders
on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No.
2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters to
determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “This standard requires the District Court to review findings
of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Equal Employment Opportunity
Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc.,
975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)). A district court may only modify or set aside those parts of the
order on non-dispositive matters that it finds to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. “A
finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.’” Pennsylvania, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-885,
2007 WL 2253554, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2007) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470
U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). “A magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law ‘when the magistrate judge
has misinterpreted or misapplied the applicable law.’” Brandon v. Burkhart, No. 1:16-cv-177,
2020 WL 85494, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006)).
Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo
review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The
reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review,
“[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent
objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review
to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as
‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866
F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)).
Before addressing the underlying Report and Recommendation, the Court will address
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. As background, Plaintiff’s Motions for Emergency Injunctive Relief
seek injunctive relief against SCI-Benner staff concerning incidents that took place at SCI-Benner.
In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Brown found that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue
any injunctive relief in this matter given that SCI-Benner and SCI-Benner staff are not a party to
this lawsuit. In his Motion to Amend, Plaintiff states that “he requests that it be removed from
said case and directed to a case [I] will file when grievances [sic] is exhausted against SCI-Benner
township.” Id. at 1. The Court believes that Plaintiff is referring to his Motions for Emergency
Injunctive Relief when he uses the word “it” and is potentially requesting to withdraw his Motions
so that he may refile them should a lawsuit be initiated against SCI-Benner. Plaintiff includes as
an attachment to his Motion to Amend a third Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief. See Id.
Ex. 1. This third Motion contains the case number for the instant action but the caption lists SCI
Benner Township as a defendant. Therefore, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff has filed
this third Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief so that the Court may rule on it or so that it may
be “directed to” a potentially new case he is planning to file against SCI-Benner.
As such, upon reasoned consideration of Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation, as
well as consideration of Plaintiff’s Motions for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend, and following review of all relevant docket entries, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The Court agrees with Judge Brown’s findings that, because Plaintiff’s Motions for
Emergency Injunctive Relief seek an injunction against staff at SCI-Benner concerning incidents
that took place at SCI-Benner, this Court does not have jurisdiction to issue such injunctive relief.
As such, the Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Brown’s
Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Brown’s Report and
Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court with respect to Plaintiff’s Motions for
Emergency Injunctive Relief.
To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to file a third Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief,
see ECF No. 66 Ex. 1, such Motion is denied for the reasons stated in the Report and
Recommendation.
However, to the extent Plaintiff is seeking to withdraw his Motions for Emergency
Injunctive Relief so that they may be filed in another case, the Court makes clear that by adopting
the Report and Recommendation, the Court is only ruling that it lacks jurisdiction to issue the
requested injunctive relief in this matter. Plaintiff is free to refile his Motions in another case so
that they may be appropriately considered in that matter. Additionally, it is Plaintiff’s
responsibility to file his documents and the Court will not direct that his Motions for Emergency
Injunctive Relief be filed in any other action.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:
• Plaintiff’s Motions for Emergency Injunctive Relief (ECF Nos. 48, 51) are
DENIED.
• Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief is
DENIED. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to amend his previously filed
Motions with a third Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief, such request is
denied for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. To the extent
Plaintiff is seeking to withdraw his Motions so that they may be filed in a separate
action, Plaintiff is responsible for filing his own documents.
• The May 7, 2025 Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted in its
entirety as the opinion of the Court.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Robert J. Colville
Robert J. Colville
United States District Judge
DATED: July 3, 2025
cc: Shaquille Dugan
NF5650
SCI Benner Township
301 Institution Drive
Bellefonte, PA 16823
All counsel of record
Judge Christopher B. Brown
U.S. Magistrate Judge