Davis v. Cowden

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEVIN DAVIS, No. 3:20-CV-01106

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

JAY COWAN, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER JULY 31, 2023 Kevin Davis filed this third amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging that numerous individuals violated his civil rights by retaliating against him for filing a complaint against prison officials, and by withholding necessary medical treatment.1 On July 6, 2023, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the pending motion to dismiss and dismiss with prejudice claims against Defendants Jay Cowan and Correct Care Solutions.2 No timely objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation.

1 Doc. 67. Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.3 Regardless of whether objections

are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.4 Upon review of the record, the Court finds no error in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s conclusion

that claims against the moving defendants should be dismissed with prejudice. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 72) is ADOPTED;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 68) is GRANTED; 3. Claims against Jay Cowan and Correct Care Solutions are DISMISSED with prejudice; and

4. This matter is REMANDED to Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed).