Opinion
Civil Action 21-27
07-08-2022
JAKWARIS ROBISON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN KEVIN SUTTER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This pro se prisoner civil action was received by the Clerk of Court on January 11, 2021 and referred to United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff, a former inmate at the Erie County Prison (“ECP”), has brought claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Warden Kevin Sutter and seven nurses who were part of the prison medical staff during Plaintiff s confinement at ECP.
Aside from Warden Kevin Sutter, the named Defendants include prison nurses Heidi Karash, Denise Long, Teri Masi, Emily Trevelline, Autumn Brown, Renee Fox, and Cindy Leana (collectively hereafter, “Defendants”).
The operative pleading in this case is Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 52. Therein, Plaintiff avers that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by allegedly failing to provide necessary dental care, resulting in the extraction of his tooth. Id.
Warden Sutter filed a motion to dismiss the SAC on February 1, 2022, arguing that Plaintiff had failed to allege his personal involvement in any alleged wrongdoing, failed to plead any basis for municipal liability, and failed to establish any entitlement to declaratory or injunctive relief. See ECF Nos. 53, 54. Several days later, the Defendant nurses filed their own motion to dismiss the SAC. See ECF No. 56. The nurse Defendants argued that the SAC, like Plaintiffs prior pleading, failed to allege a plausible Eighth Amendment violation and failed to state any grounds for equitable relief or punitive damages. ECF No. 57.
Plaintiffs response to the pending motions was due by March 7, 2022. ECF Nos. 55, 58. When no response was received, Judge Lanzillo ordered Plaintiff to show cause for his delinquency or, alternatively, file his brief in opposition to the motions, by April 18, 2022. Plaintiff failed to do either one.
Consequently, on June 6, 2022, Judge Lanzillo filed a report and recommendation ("R&R") in which, after weighing the factors outlined in Paulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), he concluded that the within civil action should be dismissed because of Plaintiffs failure to prosecute his claims. Judge Lanzillo farther opined that the pending motions to dismiss should be denied as moot.
Objections to the R&R were due to be filed on or before June 23, 2022. To date, no objections have been filed.
Accordingly, after de nova review of the Second Amended Complaint, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Defendants' pending motions, and all other relevant filings and developments in this case, the following Order is entered:
NOW, this 8th day of July, 2022, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint shall be, and hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice, based upon Plaintiffs failure to prosecute his claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, ECF Nos. [53] and [56], are DISMISSED as moot.
Finally, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, dated June 6, 2022, ECF No. [61], shall be, and hereby is adopted as the opinion of this Court.
There being no further pending matters before the Court, the Clerk is directed to mark this civil action “CLOSED.”