Opinion
Civil Action 2:16-cv-1081
06-01-2022
ALTON D. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. TOM WOLF, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: ECF 530 - MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER/ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Cynthia Reed Eddy, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
I. RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order / Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 530) filed by Plaintiff, Alton D. Brown. The motion has been referred to the undersigned Chief United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the motion be denied.
II. REPORT
Plaintiff Alton D. Brown is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette. Mr. Brown filed the instant Motion for Temporary Restraining Order / Motion for Preliminary Injunction claiming that he has “recently learned that Defendants never had any intention of attempting to cure his cancer, and that the treatment provided, if successful, was designed to prevent the cancer from worsening.” (ECF No. 530). Mr. Brown fails to identify what new information he has allegedly just learned. Defendants filed responses in opposition (ECF Nos. 537, 540, and 541) and Mr. Brown filed a Reply. (ECF No. 551). The matter is ripe for decision.
This is not the first time Mr. Brown has filed motions for injunctive relief in this case regarding the treatment for his prostate cancer. A full-day hearing was held before The Honorable Marilyn J. Horan on February 23, 2021. (ECF No. 379). Based on the testimony and evidence produced at that hearing, Mr. Brown's motion for injunctive relief was denied (ECF No. 447) and Mr. Brown's request for reconsideration of that decision also was denied. (ECF No. 547).
In the instant motion, Mr. Brown again seeks injunctive relief based upon an alleged failure to appropriately treat his prostate cancer. These issues were already fully considered by the Court during the February 23, 2021 hearing and in its August 12, 2021, Opinion and Order. (ECF No. 447).
Moreover, the undersigned notes that much, if not all, of the injunctive relief sought by Mr. Brown directly relates to the merits of the ultimate issues in this lawsuit. Since the ultimate issues in this lawsuit are inextricably intertwined with the assertions in this motion for injunctive relief, a ruling on the motion might be perceived as speaking in some way to the ultimate issues in this case. In such instances, the Court should refrain from prematurely granting such relief.
III. CONCLUSION
It is recommended that Mr. Brown's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 530) be denied. Any party is permitted to file written Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Mr. Brown, because he is a non-electronically registered party, must file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation by June 21, 2022, and Defendants, because they are electronically registered parties, must file written objections, if any, by June 15, 2022. The parties are cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). See also EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).