Opinion
CRIMINAL 3:19-cv-202
09-21-2022
BRANDON DANTE BARNES, Plaintiff, v. CO KYLE MEDVA, SARGEANT POBORSKY, C/O KOPELIC, C/O FISHER, C.O. GERBER, LT. MARK A. TURNER, C/O BORNSTNAR, SGT. WHITACRE, C/O LOMONDE, C/O CAPUTA, DR. KAUFFMAN, C/O SHROMER, LIEUTENANT BOYCE, AL JOSEPH, C. WADSWORTH, B.J. SALAMON, MS. MCCLELLAND, CHRISTIE SCHENCK, GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR; SCI SOMERSET SECURITY DEPT., LT. THOMAS, SCI SOMERSET MAILROOM, MS. LAFFE, PSYCH; MR. CARO, MS. PYLE, LT. WALTERS, LT. WASHABAUGH, CO SCOTT, CO GIBSON, C/O YINGLING, CO REESEMAN, MS. FULMER, PSYCHOLOGIST; CO SHULTZ, C. WIEGLE, MAILROOM SUPERVISOR; BRIAN HYDE, JAMES BARNACLE, OSSI; MELISSA HAINSWORTH, FACILITY MANAGER OF SCI SOMERSET; E. TICE, F.M.; DORINA VARNER, KERI MOORE, S. WIGGINS, HEX.; CO TRESSLER, B.M. DECKER, COUNSELOR RITENHOUR, F.M. OVERMYER, MAJOR TILLER, LT. ABBOTT, CO SWEITZER, SGT. BLYTHE, CO MURPHY, LT. KIM, LT. LINDSEY, CO ROSE, LT. KILLINGER, ZACHARY MOSLAK, CHIEF HEARING EXAMINER; AND C/O MARKS, Defendants,
ORDER
Stephanie L. Haines, United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 21st day of September, 2022, for the reasons set forth in Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 77), which is adopted in whole as the opinion of the Court, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Kaufman's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 61) is hereby GRANTED, and all claims against Defendant Kaufman are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Corrections Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 59) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the Corrections Defendants' Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiffs claims for Eighth Amendment excessive force pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants C/O Medva, Sgt. Poborsky, C/O Gerber and the John/Jane Doe Corrections Officers and for assault and battery under Pennsylvania law against C/O Medva, C/O Gerber, and the John/Jane Doe Corrections Officers. The Corrections Defendants' Motion is GRANTED in all other respects, and all other claims and Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objections (ECF No. 79) are OVERRULED; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motions to Amend Objections (ECF Nos. 80 and 83) are DENIED.