The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DARRYL ANTHONY LYONS,
Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-01892
v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)
SUPT. SALAMON, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff Darryl A. Lyons (“Lyons”) filed this lawsuit in the Western District of
Pennsylvania on October 5, 2021. The suit is filed against various public officials associated
with the Pennsylvania Correctional Institute, Rockview including Superintendent Salamon
(“Salamon”). (Doc. 1). On November 5, 2021, the Western District of Pennsylvania
transferred this matter to this Court. (Doc. 4). On December 22, 2021, Lyons filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). On December 22, 2021, Magistrate Judge Susan E.
Schwab granted Lyons’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10). In response to various
motions to dismiss filed by various sets of defendants, on August 21, 2023, Judge Schwab
issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss all claims except
for certain claims against Defendants Salamon, Unit Manager Clark, Ms. Olson, and COI
Curtis (collectively, “the the remaining defendants”). (Doc. 55). Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
adopted Judge Schwab’s recommendation on September 28, 2023. (Doc. 57). On April 23,
2024, Lyons filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 65). On December 16, 2024, the
the remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 73). This case was
reassigned to the undersigned on August 30, 2024, and referred to Magistrate Judge Phillip J.
Caraballo on January 23, 2025.
After the parties’ motions for summary judgment were ripe, Judge Caraballo evaluated
the motions and issued a report and recommendation (the “Report”) on July 31, 2025. (Doc.
84). Judge Caraballo recommended that Lyons’s motion for summary judgment be denied,
the the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and that this action
be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 84). In the Report, Judge Caraballo informed the parties
that they had fourteen days to file an objection to the Report. (Doc. 84, at 36). On August 14,
2025, the remaining defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to file an objection to
the Report and the Court granted the motion and informed the remaining defendants that
they had until September 15, 2025, to file an objection. (Doc. 85; Doc. 86). No objections
have been timely filed to the Report. As such, the Court will ADOPT the Report. (Doc. 84).
A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de
novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “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.” Rahman v.
Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United 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. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b).
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in the Report and finds no clear error on
the face of the record. (Doc. 84). As such, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report (Doc.
84) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. Lyons’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. 65) is DENIED, the remaining defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 73) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk
of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: September 16, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge