Opinion
Civil Action 21-1170
01-13-2022
MANNA MASSAQUOI, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ZAKEN, et al., Defendants.
Lisa Pupo Lenihan, Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
W. Scott Hardy, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Manna Massaquoi's Objections (Docket No. 31) to the Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan entered on November 4, 2021. (Docket No. 29). The R&R recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Permanent Injunction, Immediate Permanent Transfer, Appointment of Counsel & Etc. (Docket No. 7) be denied, and that his letter dated October 22, 2021, which has been construed and docketed as a Motion for Hearing (Docket No. 26) be denied. Service of the R&R was made on Plaintiff by mail and he was informed that any objections to same were due by November 22, 2021.
On that date, the Court received Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R, in which he essentially reiterates arguments made in his Motion requesting injunctive relief. (Docket No. 31). In resolving a party's objections, the Court conducts a de novo review of any part of the R&R that has been properly objected to. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court may accept, reject or modify the recommended disposition, as well as receive further evidence or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id. Upon careful de novo review of the R&R,
Plaintiff's Objections and the entire record in this case, the Court concludes that the Objections do not undermine the R&R's recommended disposition.
In so ruling, the Court agrees with Judge Lenihan's conclusion that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief. Initially, Plaintiff has not established a nexus between the injuries claimed in his Motion and the conduct asserted in the Complaint, as explained in the R&R. (Docket No. 29 at 5-6). As further explained, even based solely on the allegations in Plaintiff's Motion, he has not shown an immediate irreparable injury to justify granting the requested relief. Moreover, Plaintiff has not filed anything to refute the statements in the Declaration by Lt. Sam V. Napoleon, who is assigned to the Restricted Housing Unit at SCI-Greene, which was submitted with Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion. (See Docket No. 25-1). Based on Lt. Napoleon's representations, Judge Lenihan correctly determined that Plaintiff is not at risk of immediate or irreparable injury with respect to his claims concerning his property or access to it, or his claims regarding staff not properly wearing their face masks. (See Docket No. 29 at 7-8). Finally, this Court also agrees that Plaintiff is not entitled to relief on his request that officials at SCI-Green be ordered to audio and video record every interaction they have with him and on his request for transfer to SCI-Phoenix or SCI-Chester, given that granting such relief would “effectively have the federal courts making ad hoc, and individual, decisions concerning the treatment of a single prisoner, [which] could harm both the defendants' and the public's interest, ” Kelly v. Merrill, 2014 WL 7740025, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2014), as more fully explained in the R&R. (See id. at 8-9). Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 13th day of January, 2022, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections to the R&R (Docket No. 31) are OVERRULED, and the R&R (Docket No. 29) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Permanent Injunction, Immediate Permanent Transfer, Appointment of Counsel & Etc. (Docket No. 7) and Plaintiff's letter dated October 22, 2021, which has been construed and docketed as a Motion for Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for injunctive relief (Docket No. 26) are DENIED.