BROWN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ALTON D. BROWN, )

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil No. 16-cv-1680

WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for

pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and

Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. Magistrate Judge Lanzillo issued a Report and

Recommendation filed November 7, 2025, recommending that the four Motions for Summary

Judgment filed by Defendants, be granted. ECF No. 508. Objections to the Report and

Recommendation were due by November 21, 2025, for the electronically registered Defendants,

and by November 24, 2025, for the non-electronically registered Plaintiff, Alton D. Brown.

On December 1, 2025, Mr. Brown was granted an extension to January 30, 2026, within

which to file objections. ECF No. 510. On January 30, 2026', Mr. Brown sought an additional

thirty-day extension of time within which to file objections. ECF No. 512. Defendant Robert

Valley opposed Mr. Brown’s Motion. ECF No. 513. On February 12, 2026, this Court denied the

request for an extension of time, citing the extraordinary length of time the Motions for

Summary Judgment have been pending (over three years), the extraordinary amount of time

afforded to Mr. Brown within which to file an omnibus response to the Motions (from November

1 Mr. Brown’s Motion was erroneously docketed in this Court on February 3, 2026; however, Mr. Brown had timely

deposited his Motion in the prison mail system by January 30, 2026.

25, 2022 to April 29, 2024, with an extension to July 24, 2024 to supplement his Response), Mr.

Brown’s familiarity with his claims and Defendants’ defenses, the conciseness of the Report, and

the length of the present litigation. ECF No. 514. On February 23, 2026,” Mr. Brown filed a

Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying his request for an extension of time to

file objections. ECF No. 515. In his Motion, Mr. Brown stated that he had completed 75% of his

Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, this Court granted the Motion and

extended the deadline for filing Objections to March 31, 2026. Thereafter, Mr. Brown filed his

Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

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).

Following a de novo review of the relevant pleadings and documents in this case, together with

the Report and Recommendation, and Objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff's

Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

At issue are four Motions for Summary Judgment filed by twelve Department of

Corrections’ Defendants (DOC Defendants °), thirty-three Medical Defendants (Medical

Defendants*), Arthur Santos, M.D., and Robert Valley, M.D. Summary judgment must be

granted when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

? Again, Mr. Brown’s Motion for Reconsideration was erroneously docketed in this Court on F ebruary 26, 2026.

The Motion was deposited in the prison mail system by February 23, 2026.

3 The DOC Defendants are: Noel, Oppman, Silva, Knauer, Stanishefski, Gordon, Funk, Vihlidal, Guth,

Nicholson, Dreibelbis, and Korszniak.

* The Medical Defendants are: Wexford Health Sources, Correct Care Solutions, Jin, Mwaura, Dascani, Salameh,

Mattes, Robinson, Gillmen, Doll, Long, Cutshall, Arias, Capone, Gonzalez, Park, Lightbourn, Zimmerly,

Degrangesco, Machak, Agra, Kaminsky, Kephart, Price, Austin, Liberatore, Hice, Schariff, Dancha, Lehman,

Alpert, Malhi, and Keldie.

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Magistrate Judge’s

Report is a thorough analysis of the applicable law to the Defendants’ arguments in favor of

summary judgment. As set forth in the Report, the relevant analysis leads to the conclusion that

Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment must be granted.

In his Objections, Mr. Brown argues that the Report is based upon an alleged, continuing

and historical, bias and prejudice against him on the part of the Magistrate Judges and District

Judges that have been assigned to his case.° Mr. Brown similarly objects on the basis that, at

various times during this litigation, he lacked access to his necessary documents to allow him to

assert objections. Such broad and general arguments are not objections to identified portions of

the Report, as required. Mr. Brown’s general objections appear to be complaints about due

process violations, allegedly occurring throughout the course of this action. Such arguments are

not objections to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of the Motions in his Report. Mr. Brown also

discusses alleged irregularities with pleadings he filed, or attempted to file, in 2017, 2018 and

later. Such objections also do not challenge the Report. Accordingly, the Court will not address

Mr. Brown’s general objections that do not object to the substance of the Report.

Mr. Brown raises a more pertinent and specific objection that the Magistrate Judge failed

to consider all of Mr. Brown’s pleadings and associated exhibits he submitted in response to the

Motions for Summary Judgment. Nearly all of the pleadings that Mr. Brown cites as not being

considered, do not exist on the docket within the time frames he alleges he mailed said

pleadings.° Particular attention is placed on pleadings dated April 29, 2024, which Mr. Brown

Throughout the history of this case there have been two Magistrate Judges and two District Judges assigned:

Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy, Magistrate Judge Richard Lanzillo, District Judge Cathy Bissoon and the

undersigned.

° The Court acknowledges Mr. Brown’s continuing complaint that pleadings have been mishandled throughout the

litigation. Such global complaints, however, are not objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report.

alleges he mailed; however, such pleadings do not appear on the docket, at least as they are

described by Mr. Brown in his Objections. Some of the pleadings he describes appear to have

been filed along with other pleadings. For example, attached to Mr. Brown’s Response are his

ten-page Declaration, plus over 330 pages of Exhibits. ECF No. 478-1 to 478-16. The Court’s

review of the docket, including the vast number of exhibits submitted throughout the course of

this litigation by all parties, demonstrates that the Magistrate Judge did not fail to review Mr.

Brown’s pertinent responses to the Motions for Summary Judgment. Therefore, this Objection is

overruled.

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the

Report and Recommendation and Mr. Brown’s Objections, the Court concludes that the

Objections do not undermine the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Report and

Recommendation will be adopted as the Opinion of the Court, the Defendants’ Motions for

Summary Judgment will be granted, and the Amended Complaint will be dismissed.

An appropriate order will be entered.

Dated: April 21, 2026 s/Marilyn J. Horan

Marilyn J. Horan

United States District Court Judge

Alton D. Brown

DL-4686

SCI Fayette

48 Overlook Drive

LaBelle, PA 15450-1050