Pressley v. Johnson

Full title: SEAN PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, v. SUPT. P. JOHNSON, C.O. CLARK, C.O. YOLINSKY…

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

Date published: Mar 31, 2006

Civil Action No. 01-2350 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 01-2350.

March 31, 2006

ORDER

ARTHUR SCHWAB, District Judge

The above captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Ila Jeanne Sensenich for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. The case was transferred to Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on April 6, 2004.

The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 235), filed on March 2, 2006, recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 206) be granted to the extent that it seeks an order requiring Defendants to comply with Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) policies and procedures and to the extent it seeks the return of his legal property in accordance with DOC policy. It also recommended that to the extent Plaintiff's motion sought additional privileges beyond those provided to inmates housed in disciplinary custody in the RHU, including any items specifically denied to Plaintiff by DOC officials based on legitimate penological concerns such as institutional security, the motion should be denied. All parties were served with the Report and Recommendation and were advised they were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written objections to the report and recommendation. No objections were filed.

After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the report and recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 30^th day of March, 2006;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. No. 206) is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks an order requiring Defendants to comply with Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) policies and procedures and to the extent it seeks the return of his legal property in accordance with DOC policy.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED as to any additional privileges sought by Plaintiff beyond those provided to inmates housed in disciplinary custody.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 235) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated March 2, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the court.