Murray v. Wetzel

3 Citing cases

  1. Seldon v. Wetzel

    Case No. 1:19-cv-90 (W.D. Pa. May. 13, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Mearin v. Swartz, 2014 WL 1922786, at * 11 (W.D. Pa. May 14, 2014) (collecting cases for the proposition that "claims brought by prisoners who allege injuries such as eye irritation, nausea, headaches and breathing problems but fail to link these symptoms to ETS exposure" are routinely dismissed). See also Spellman v. Secy Pa, Dept of Corr., 751 Fed.Appx. 251, 253 (3d Cir. 2018) (although plaintiff "complained of a 'smoking cellie' and had a history of asthma," he could not demonstrate "a serious medical need related to ETS exposure" where the record indicated that his asthma symptoms were mild and well-controlled); Murray v. Wetzel, 2021 WL 1173001, at *10 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2021) (inmate diagnosed with allergic rhinitis failed to demonstrate serious medical injury from ETS where the record revealed that he only sought medical attention on a handful of occasions and was able to manage his condition with an antihistamine prescription). Turning to the subjective prong, Seldon must demonstrate that Miller was deliberately indifferent to the impact of ETS on his asthma.

  2. Marrow v. Lawler

    No. 1:19-cv-1690 (M.D. Pa. May. 12, 2021)   Cited 3 times

    Because Plaintiff failed to request monetary damages in his grievance proceedings, he did not properly exhaust his claims for such relief. See Johnson v. Wireman, 809 F. App'x 97, 99 (3d Cir. 2020); Murray v. Wetzel, No. 1:17-cv-1637, 2021 WL 1173001, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2021). Moreover, the Third Circuit has noted that "a Pennsylvania inmate's failure to properly identify a defendant constitute[s] a failure to properly exhaust his administrative remedies under the PLRA."

  3. Harvey v. Cline

    No. 3:18-cv-939 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 27, 2021)   Cited 2 times

    Thus, because Defendant Harvey failed to request monetary damages, he did not properly exhaust his claim for such. See Johnson v. Wireman, 809 F. App'x 97, 99 (3d Cir. 2020); Murray v. Wetzel, No. 1:17-cv-1637, 2021 WL 1173001, at *7 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2021). Defendants, therefore, are entitled to summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff Harvey's claim for damages.