Edward Lang v. Divinity White, in her individual capacity; and Vernon Krepps, in his individual capacity

W.D. Pennsylvania

Edward Lang v. Divinity White, in her individual capacity; and Vernon Krepps, in his individual capacity

DecidedMarch 24, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-01194

StatusUnknown

This text of Edward Lang v. Divinity White, in her individual capacity; and Vernon Krepps, in his individual capacity (Edward Lang v. Divinity White, in her individual capacity; and Vernon Krepps, in his individual capacity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edward Lang v. Divinity White, in her individual capacity; and Vernon Krepps, in his individual capacity, (W.D. Pa. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EDWARD LANG, ) )

vs. Plaintiff, ) ) ) 2 :24-cv-1194 ) Hon. J. Nicholas Ranjan DIVINITY WHITE, in her individual ) capacity; and VERNON KREPPS, in ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly h is individual capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER This is a prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. Currently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (ECF 58) filed by Judge Kelly on February 12, 2026. The report recommends granting with prejudice Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 48, 50) the Second Amended Complaint (ECF 46). In that complaint, Plaintiff Edward Lang alleges an 8th Amendment failure to protect claim against both Defendants. Judge Kelly found that, despite multiple opportunities to amend deficiencies within his prior complaints, Mr. Lang again failed to allege any facts showing deliberate indifference by either Defendant. See Burton v. Kindle, 401 F. App’x 635, 638 (3d Cir. 2010) (dismissal where no facts alleged suggesting that the defendant knew the plaintiff would be attacked). The parties were notified that objections to the Report & Recommendation were due by February 26, 2026. ECF 58. The Court granted Mr. Lang’s motion for extension of this deadline (ECF 59) through March 12, 2026. ECF 60. On March 11, 2026, Mr. Lang filed a status report (ECF 61) telling the Court that he would not file objection to the Report & Recommendation. Upon a review of the record of this matter and the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record, and therefore enters the following order. AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Report & Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EDWARD LANG, ) )

vs. Plaintiff, ) ) ) 2 :24-cv-1194 ) Hon. J. Nicholas Ranjan DIVINITY WHITE, in her individual ) capacity; and VERNON KREPPS, in ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly h is individual capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER This is a prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Local Rules of Court applicable to Magistrate Judges. Currently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (ECF 58) filed by Judge Kelly on February 12, 2026. The report recommends granting with prejudice Defendants’ motions to dismiss (ECF 48, 50) the Second Amended Complaint (ECF 46). In that complaint, Plaintiff Edward Lang alleges an 8th Amendment failure to protect claim against both Defendants. Judge Kelly found that, despite multiple opportunities to amend deficiencies within his prior complaints, Mr. Lang again failed to allege any facts showing deliberate indifference by either Defendant. See Burton v. Kindle, 401 F. App’x 635, 638 (3d Cir. 2010) (dismissal where no facts alleged suggesting that the defendant knew the plaintiff would be attacked). The parties were notified that objections to the Report & Recommendation were due by February 26, 2026. ECF 58. The Court granted Mr. Lang’s motion for extension of this deadline (ECF 59) through March 12, 2026. ECF 60. On March 11, 2026, Mr. Lang filed a status report (ECF 61) telling the Court that he would not file objection to the Report & Recommendation. Upon a review of the record of this matter and the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record, and therefore enters the following order. AND NOW, this 24th day of March, 2026, it is hereby ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Report & Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ J. Nicholas Ranjan United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Edward Lang v. Divinity White, in her individual capacity; and Vernon Krepps, in his individual capacity, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edward-lang-v-divinity-white-in-her-individual-capacity-and-vernon-pawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack