The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
DEVIN BRAMHALL, )
) No. 2:22-cv-1328
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville
)
CHARLES DELSANDRO, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown
)
Defendants. )
)
ORDER OF COURT
Before the Court is the Honorable Christopher B. Brown’s August 4, 2025 Report and
Recommendation (ECF No. 121). Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation recommends that
the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 91) filed by Plaintiff Devin Bramhall be denied. It
further recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 96) filed by Defendants
Dongilli, Poska, Logue, Scherer, Albright, Delsandro, Pletcher, Halkias, Rudzienski, Fisher,
Doran, Minor, and Scoles be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Brown’s Report and
Recommendation specifically recommends that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment as to: (1) Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim for the deprivation and
destruction of personal property; and (2) Plaintiff’s First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment
access to courts claim. ECF No. 121 at 2. The Report and Recommendation recommends that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be denied in all other respects, which would result in
the following claims surviving at this stage of the proceedings:
1. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against C/O Delsandro and
Sgt. Logue for using OC spray;
2. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Lt. Poska, and
C/Os Albright, Pletcher, Scoles, Doran, and Minor for physical and sexual assault;
3. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim against Lt. Fisher and Hearing Examiner Rudzienski for issuing a
retaliatory misconduct related disciplinary hearing; and
4. Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against C/Os Scherer and Dongilli
for mail tampering.
Id. at 3. Defendants have not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed
Objections (ECF Nos. 126 and 127) to the Report and Recommendation on August 26, 2025. In
addition to challenging Judge Brown’s recommendation respecting the pending Motions for
Judgment, Plaintiff also objects (ECF Nos. 122 and 123) to Judge Brown’s denial of his Motion
for Sanctions (ECF No. 114) via Order at ECF No. 120. Following a stay in this matter, Defendants
filed a response (ECF No. 129) to Plaintiff’s Objections. This matter is 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)).
Upon consideration of Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation, the relevant motions
and docket entries, and Plaintiff’s Objections, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
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 the pending Motions
for Summary Judgment. The Court further agrees with Judge Brown’s reasoning supporting the
denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions. Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled. Again, the Court
agrees with Judge Brown’s analysis and conclusions, which are set forth at length in his Report
and Recommendation. It is hereby further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is denied. His appeal of Judge Brown’s decision on his Motion for Sanctions is denied.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants’
Motion is denied as to the following claims:
1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against C/O Delsandro and
Sgt. Logue for using OC spray;
2) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Lt. Poska, and C/Os
Albright, Pletcher, Scoles, Doran, and Minor for physical and sexual assault;
3) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim and Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim against Lt. Fisher and Hearing Examiner Rudzienski for issuing a
retaliatory misconduct related disciplinary hearing; and
4) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against C/Os Scherer and Dongilli
for mail tampering.
Their Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s other claims against them, and judgment is entered
in their favor as to those claims.
BY THE COURT:
s/Robert J. Colville____
Robert J. Colville
United States District Judge
DATED: January 22, 2026
cc:
Counsel of Record
Devin Bramhall
NT8011
SCI SMITHFIELD
1120 Pike Street
Huntingdon, PA 16652