Riley v. Clark

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 13, 2021
• Docket: 4:20-cv-00325
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

CARMEN RILEY, et al., No. 4:20-CV-00325

Plaintiffs, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Arbuckle)

WARDEN BRIAN CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER JANUARY 13, 2021 Carmen Riley and Thomas Matthews, individually and as the parents of Ty’Rique Riley, and Carmen Riley as administrator of Ty’Rique Riley’s estate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint—which was later amended—alleging that numerous individuals and entities violated Ty’Rique Riley’s rights during the events that preceded his untimely death.1 On December 21, 2020, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle issued two Report and Recommendations recommending that this Court grant in part the pending motions to dismiss and dismiss certain Defendants from certain counts of the amended complaint.2 Plaintiffs filed a notice on January 4, 2021, stating that they had no objections to the Report and Recommendations.3

1 Docs. 1, 16. 2 Docs. 51, 52. Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.4 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.5 Upon review of the record, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge

Arbuckle’s conclusions that certain defendants and claims should be dismissed from the amended complaint. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle’s Report and Recommendations (Docs. 51, 52) are ADOPTED;

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 28, 45) are GRANTED in part as follows: A. Counts 8, 14, and 15 are DISMISSED as against Susquehanna

Township Police Department, Michael Darcy, Demetrius Glenn, Aaron Osman, Richard Adams, and Richard Wilson; B. Count 8 is DISMISSED as against Chris Haines; C. Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are DISMISSED

without prejudice as against Angela Swanson.

4 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). 5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 3. This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Arbuckle for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

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