Opinion
1:22-CV-164
07-11-2023
ANITA ARGOTT, Plaintiff v. LACKAWANNA COUNTY, et al., Defendants
ORDER
Robert D. Mariani, United States District Judge
AND NOW, THIS 11th DAY OF JULY, 2023, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Susan Schwab's Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 38), Defendants' Objections thereto (Docs. 39,43,44,45), and all other relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 38) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein.
The Court agrees with Judge Schwab's detailed and exhaustive legal and factual analysis in its entirety. Upon review of Defendants' lengthy briefs in support of their Objections, it is evident that the Defendants' extensive arguments in favor of their position that Judge Schwab erred in not fully granting their respective motions to dismiss are without merit. Defendants' disagreements with the R&R's analysis are unsupported by any persuasive authority or argument. The Objections largely set forth the basic applicable and undisputed law and, particularly with respect to the County Defendants' Objections, generally re-iterate the same arguments previously raised, and thoroughly addressed, by Judge Schwab. The Court nonetheless notes, as did Judge Schwab, that while the majority of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint adequately sets forth claims upon which relief can be granted and sufficient specific factual allegations therefor, this does not preclude the possibility that some of Defendants' arguments may ultimately succeed on summary judgment.
2. The County Defendants' Objections (Docs. 39,43) are OVERRULED.
3. The Medical Defendants' Objections (Docs. 44,45) are OVERRULED.
4. The County Defendants' Motion for Dismissal Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 28) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
a. The claims against Defendant Betti and the County Doe Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED.
b. The claims against Lackawanna County, the Lackawanna County Prison Board, and Betti (in his individual capacity) by Plaintiff Argott that her constitutional rights were violated when she was placed on behavior watches are DISMISSED.
c. All claims against the County Doe Defendants in their individual capacities are DISMISSED.
d. The County Defendants' Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
5. The Motion for Partial Dismissal Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) by Defendants Correctional Care, Inc., and Dr. Edward Zaloga (Doc. 33) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS:
a. The claims against CCI and Zaloga by Plaintiff Argott that her constitutional rights were violated when she was placed on behavior watches are DISMISSED.
b. The Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
6. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff's failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint will result in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 25) being deemed as the operative complaint in the above-captioned action.
7. The case is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings consistent with this Order.