Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

COURTNEY A. MILLER as administrator of

the estate of ALEC D. MILLER,

25cv1538

Plaintiff, ELECTRONICALLY FILED

v.

BUTLER COUNTY ET AL.,

Defendants.

Memorandum Order Adopting Report and Recommendation and

Granting Partial Motion to Dismiss (Count Two)

Plaintiff, Courtney Miller (“Plaintiff”), in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of

Alec Miller (“Decedent”), brings this counseled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

on behalf of Decedent, who died of a fentanyl drug overdose while he was incarcerated at Butler

County Prison, in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Doc. 1 at ¶ 24. Plaintiff alleges in a

Six (6) Count Complaint that Defendants violated the civil rights of Decedent alleging claims of:

Failure to Protect (Count One), Violations of Procedural Due Process (Count Two); Failure to

Train (Count Three); Municipal Liability (Count Four), as well as state law claims of Wrongful

Death and Survival (Counts Five and Six), in violation of either the Eighth Amendment,

Fourteenth Amendment, federal law, and/or state law. Id. at ¶¶ 32-84. This matter was referred

to United States Magistrate Judge Christopher Brown for proceedings in accordance with the

Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.

Pending before this Court is Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Count Two of the

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. 11. Defendants

argue the alleged Procedural Due Process violations are already covered by the Monell claim for

Municipal Liability at Count Four. Id. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of

New York, 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). Plaintiff opposes and argues she has sufficiently stated

a claim. Doc. 19. In the thorough Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Christopher Brown, filed on July 29, 2026, it is recommended that Count Two of

Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and with leave for Plaintiff to file an

Amended Complaint. Doc. 21.

Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by August 12, 2026. Doc. 21.

As of this date, no objections have been filed.

After de novo review of the Record in this matter, including the Partial Motion to

Dismiss, Response, and the well-reasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Brown, Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Count Two –

the Procedural Due Process Claim – is dismissed without prejudice to file an Amended

Complaint. Should Plaintiff choose to Amend her Complaint, the Amended Complaint shall be

filed by September 21, 2026.

It is further ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of July 29, 2026 (Doc. 21),

is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

SO ORDERED this 1st day of September, 2026.

s/Arthur J. Schwab

Arthur J. Schwab

United States District Judge

cc: ECF Counsel of Record