From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connell v. Sobina

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 11, 2008
1:06cv238 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2008)

Summary

dismissing plaintiff's claims for supervisory liability under section 1983 where his complaint "fail[ed] to allege facts that, if proven, would show that [the supervisor defendants] had any personal involvement in the alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights"

Summary of this case from Delagol v. Ramsey

Opinion

1:06cv238.

January 11, 2008


MEMORANDUM ORDER


The above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (doc. no. 1) on October 17, 2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan filed a Report and Recommendation on December 3, 2007 (doc. no. 51) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 17) be granted as to Defendants Beard, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Secretary and Acting Secretary, Wilson, the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and denied as to Defendant Sobina as to Plaintiff's retaliation claims regarding abusive cell searches and his transfer from SCI-Forest to SCI-Cresson in May of 2006. In addition, it recommended that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed against all of the remaining Defendants except Defendants Barone, Hall and Wojcik as to the single claim that these Defendants either ordered or participated in abusive cell searches during January through April of 2006 in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The parties were served with the Report and Recommendation and advised that they had ten days within which to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. On December 13, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objections to the Report and Reccommendation (doc. no. 57). On December 17, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion allowing him until December 28, 2007 to file his objections. No objections have been filed.

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 11th day of January, 2008;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 17) is GRANTED as to Defendants Beard, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole Secretary and Acting Secretary, Wilson, and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; it is DENIED as to Defendant Sobina with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims regarding abusive cell searches and his transfer from SCI-Forest to SCI-Cresson in May of 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accordance with the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED against all of the remaining Defendants EXCEPT Defendants Barone, Hall and Wojcik as to the single claim that these Defendants either ordered or participated in abusive cell searches during January through April of 2006.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 51) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan dated December 3, 2007, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.


Summaries of

O'Connell v. Sobina

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Jan 11, 2008
1:06cv238 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2008)

dismissing plaintiff's claims for supervisory liability under section 1983 where his complaint "fail[ed] to allege facts that, if proven, would show that [the supervisor defendants] had any personal involvement in the alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights"

Summary of this case from Delagol v. Ramsey

dismissing plaintiff's claims for supervisory liability under section 1983 where his complaint "fail[ed] to allege facts that, if proven, would show that [the supervisor defendants] had any personal involvement in the alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights"

Summary of this case from Miles v. City of Phila.

dismissing plaintiff's claims for supervisory liability under section 1983 where his complaint "failed to allege facts that, if proven, would show that [the supervisor defendants] had any personal involvement in the alleged violations of Plaintiff's constitutional rights"

Summary of this case from Miles v. City of Philadelphia

In O'Connell v. Sobina, 2008 WL 144199, *3 (W.D. Pa.), the Court stated, "Section 1915(e) (as amended) requires the federal courts to review complaints filed by persons that are proceeding in forma pauperis and to dismiss, at any time, any action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a Defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)."

Summary of this case from Brooks v. Central Dauphin School District

following Evancho's "conduct, time, place and persons responsible" test for adequacy of pleadings

Summary of this case from Riddell v. Gordon
Case details for

O'Connell v. Sobina

Case Details

Full title:WARREN O'CONNELL, Plaintiff, v. Superintendent RAYMOND J. SOBINA; DSFM…

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

Date published: Jan 11, 2008

Citations

1:06cv238 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2008)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Ramus

Since we will recommend that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis be granted, we are obliged to…

Oliver v. Tennis

Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349 ("Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and…