Molina v. Kauffman

Opinion

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

MIGUEL MOLINA, et al., No. 4:21-CV-00038

Plaintiffs, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

K. KAUFFMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER AUGUST 30, 2022 Plaintiffs filed this civil rights complaint—which they have amended three times—alleging that their rights have been violated by Defendants as related to the conditions of confinement at Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution Huntingdon.1 Plaintiffs have filed motions for preliminary injunctions, along with other miscellaneous motions, and Defendants have filed motions to dismiss.2 In July 2022 Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant the motions to dismiss and deny the motions for a preliminary injunction.3 Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.4

1 Docs. 1, 35, 72, 101, 102, 104, 1008. 2 Docs. 111, 115, 117, 118, 120, 122, 125, 153, 190, 196. 3 Doc. 202. “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.’”5 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.6 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Chief

Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief, and are not entitled to a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 202) is ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiffs’ motions for a preliminary injunction (Docs. 117, 122, 125, 153) are DENIED; 3. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 111, 115, 118, 120) are

GRANTED as follows: a. Any claims against Defendants Wetzel and Kauffman in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice;

b. All remaining claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

5 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)). 4. Maldanado’s motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. 190) is DENIED;

5. Molina’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 209) his motion to file a supplemental complaint is GRANTED and his motion to file a supplemental complaint (Doc. 203) is deemed WITHDRAWN;

6. Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Doc. 196) is DENIED as moot; 7. Plaintiffs may, if they choose, file a single, all-inclusive fourth amended complaint that seeks to cure the deficiencies outlined in Chief

Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation. The failure to file a timely amended complaint may result in this case being dismissed with prejudice; and 8. 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