Irizarry v. Kauffman

Opinion

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

ANGEL IRIZARRY, No. 4:22-CV-01892

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

K. KAUFFMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 Angel Irizarry and several co-plaintiffs previously filed a civil rights complaint—which was amended three times—alleging that their rights were violated by Defendants as related to the conditions of confinement at Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution Huntingdon.1 Irizarry’s co-plaintiffs were severed from this matter, and Irizarry was directed to file a fourth amended complaint.2 Irizarry filed a fourth amended complaint, and Defendants moved to dismiss in part that complaint.3 In May 2023, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the motion to dismiss and

1 Docs. 1, 35, 72, 101, 102, 104, 108. 2 Doc. 223. dismiss in part Irizarry’s fourth amended complaint.4 After receiving an extension of time,5 Irizarry filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.6

“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”7

Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.8 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s conclusion that Irizarry’s fourth amended complaint

should be dismissed in part. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 236) is ADOPTED;

2. Defendants’ partial motion to dismiss (Doc. 225) is GRANTED; A. Count 1 is DISMISSED with prejudice as against all defendants except for John Wetzel; B. Count 2 is DISMISSED with prejudice;

C. Count 3 is STRICKEN from the fourth amended complaint; and

4 Doc. 236. 5 Doc. 238. 6 Docs. 239, 242, 243, 246. 7 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 8 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 3. 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