Manuel v. Capozza

Full title: KARL B. MANUEL, Plaintiff, v. SUPERINTENDENT MARK CAPOZZA, C/O JOHN DOE…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Dec 27, 2023

2:20cv1759 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2023)

Opinion

2:20cv1759

12-27-2023

KARL B. MANUEL, Plaintiff, v. SUPERINTENDENT MARK CAPOZZA, C/O JOHN DOE #1, C/O JOHN DOE #2, C/O SGT. WILES, C/O LT. DAILEY, MEDICAL PROVIDER, M.P.A. DARLA COWDEN, ASST. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL, Defendants.

DAVID STEWART CERCONE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Electronic Filing

MEMORANDUM ORDER

DAVID STEWART CERCONE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) filed by Magistrate Judge Kelly on November 2, 2023. The R&R recommends that plaintiff's claims against Correction Officers John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 be dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to serve these defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). This recommendation is based in part on plaintiff's failure to identify these defendants more specifically during discovery.

On May 15, 2023, an order was entered directing plaintiff to show cause why the John Doe defendants should not be dismissed for failure to effectuate service of the complaint. Plaintiff filed a response which highlighted the factual assertions for his claims against these defendants but did not otherwise address the failure to identify and serve them. The November 2, 2023, R&R followed. Plaintiff filed objections, which were received on November 20, 2023.

Plaintiff's "objections" are overruled. The court does not question the veracity of plaintiff's allegations that he was beaten and placed in a cell sprayed with "oleoresin capsicum" nor his assertions that he suffered "extreme pain and discomfort [as well as] a multitude of mental, emotional distress" symptoms. Nevertheless, these allegations and assertion do not eliminate or otherwise excuse plaintiffs failure to identify and serve the John Doe defendants in a timely manner as required by Rule 4(m). Consequently, after de novo review of the record, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 27^th day of December, 2023, IT IS ORDERED that the claims against defendants Correction Officer John Doe No. 1 and Correction Officer John Doe No. 2 be, and the same hereby are, dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve these defendants in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

The [86] November 2, 2023, Report and Recommendation as augmented above is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.