Opinion
2:20-cv-00620
07-21-2022
STEFON D. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. JAMES J. PHILLIPS, Defendant.
W. SCOTT HARDY JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PATRICIA L. DODGE UNITED STATE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. Recommendation
It is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant James J. Phillips (ECF No. 59) be granted.
II. Report
A. Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff Stefon D. Wilson (“Wilson”) filed a Complaint on May 11, 2020 (ECF No. 7) alleging various violations of his civil rights relating to the conditions of his incarceration at Westmoreland County Prison. He later amended his Complaint (ECF No. 12), changing the focus to civil rights violations under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments relating to his arrest and detention. In his Amended Complaint Wilson named as defendants Magisterial District Judge Joseph R. Demarchis, Jacquelyn A. Knupp (“Knupp”), James J. Phillips (“Phillips”), and Agent Rich Castagna (“Castagna”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”). Each of the Defendants filed a separate Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 32, 38, 41, 44) with supporting Briefs (ECF Nos. 33, 39, 42, 45), respectively. Wilson responded only to the motions of Phillips and Knupp, filing a Brief in Opposition to Phillips' partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 51) and a Response to Knupp's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 52).
The defendants named in the initial Complaint were terminated because none of them were named in the Amended Complaint.
This Court subsequently issued a Report and Recommendation in which it recommended granting the motions to dismiss of Demarchis, Knupp, and Castagna with prejudice, and granting Phillips' partial motion to dismiss by dismissing Wilson's claims of ethnic intimidation and official oppression with prejudice and dismissing his racial profiling claim without prejudice (ECF No. 53). The Honorable W. Scott Hardy adopted the Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the Court (ECF No. 54), leaving Phillips as the sole defendant in the case. Wilson was provided an opportunity to file a second amended complaint regarding his claim of racial profiling but did not do so. Therefore, the remaining claims against Phillips are for false arrest and false imprisonment in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Phillips subsequently filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 56).
In his Motion to Dismiss Phillips also argued that the Court should stay the civil action - which at that point would only consist of Wilson's Section 1983 claims under the Fourth Amendment -until Wilson's state court criminal case was resolved. See ECF No. 53 at p. 18. The Court denied without prejudice Phillips' Motion to Stay. See ECF No. 53, III. Conclusion.
Phillips now moves for summary judgment in his favor (ECF No. 59), which is supported by a brief (ECF No. 60), a Concise Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 61) and an Appendix (ECF No. 62). The Court ordered Wilson to respond to Phillips' motion for summary judgment by April 8, 2022 (ECF No. 63). He failed to respond, request additional time to do so or otherwise communicate with the Court. Thereafter, the Court issued another order directing Wilson to file a response no later than May 11, 2022, or otherwise show cause why this case should not be dismissed. Further, the Order stated that Wilson's failure to respond will be construed as his decision not to continue prosecution of this case.
Wilson failed to comply with the May 11, 2022, Order, and as such, has not submitted any opposition to Phillips' motion for summary judgment or disputed Phillips' concise statement of facts as required by L.Cv.R.56.C.1. As a consequence, and in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, this Court has treated the facts stated in Phillips' concise statement of material facts as undisputed for the purpose of resolving his motion except on the issue of whether he was the arresting officer since the state court docket sheet identifies him as such. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(2); Local Rule 56.E; see, e.g., Hughes v. Allegheny Cnty Airport Authority, No. 15-CV-221, 2017 WL 2880875, *1-2 (W.D. Pa. July 6, 2017); see also ECF No. 62-10 at p. 4, Ex. J (listing Phillips as the arresting officer).
Although a party may not rest on his or her pleadings to create a fact issue sufficient to survive summary judgment, allegations that are based upon personal knowledge and which are contained in a verified complaint (ordinarily not required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) may be used to oppose a motion for summary judgment because it can be treated as an affidavit or declaration. See, e.g., Reese v. Sparks, 760 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1985). Wilson's Amended Complaint was neither sworn nor signed under penalty of perjury and, therefore, the Court cannot treat it as the equivalent of an affidavit or declaration in opposition to Phillips' motion. See, e.g., Ziegler v. Eby, 77 Fed.Appx. 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2003); 11 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE-CIVIL § 56.94[2A], Lexis (database updated June 2022) (“A verified pleading may serve as an affidavit or declaration for purposes of summary judgment to the extent that it meets the requirements for summary judgment affidavits and declarations discussed above. However, an unverified pleading may not be used as summary judgment evidence.”)
B. Relevant Facts
The claims Wilson brings against Officer Phillips turn on his allegation that Phillips lacked probable cause to arrest him and therefore he has been illegally detained since his arrest, first at the Jeanette Police Department and then at the Westmoreland County Prison. See ECF No. 12, ¶¶ 1, 4, and p. 7. See also ECF No. 62-4 at p. 3, Ex. D; 62-5 at p. 2, Ex. E and 62-10 at p. 6, Ex. J.
Wilson alleged in the Amended Complaint that on September 12, 2019, he was standing outside a house located at 507 Pine Street, Jeannette, Pennsylvania, when Phillips, in his official capacity, pulled up in a Jeannette police cruiser with his firearm “hanging” outside of the driver's side window. See ECF No. 12, p. 2. Phillips told Wilson to get on the ground and proceeded to arrest Wilson, which Wilson asserts was without probable cause, and then illegally detained him. See id. Wilson further alleged in the Amended Complaint that he was “not involved in any criminal activity, [was] never in possession of] any contraband [sic] [or] any weapons at any time...” Id. Wilson claims he was “falsely arrested and falsely imprisonment [sic]. [in] direct violations [sic] of [his] constitution[al] right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Id. In addition to claiming that there was no probable cause for his arrest and detention by Phillips, he also asserts that his Fourth Amendment right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
According to Phillips' Concise Statement of Material Facts, Castagna, a member of the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General's Special Operations Group (“SOG”), obtained a search warrant for 507 Pine Street, Jeannette, Pennsylvania after making observations regarding unusual activity at 507 Pine Street as well as intercepting a cocaine transaction at that location. See ECF No. 61, ¶¶ 5-10; Castagna Investigative Report, Ex. D, ¶ 2. During his surveillance, Castagna observed Wilson walk out of 507 Pine Street and stand on the front stoop of the residence talking to a woman sitting inside a sedan. See ECF No. 61, ¶ 11; Castagna Investigative Report, Ex. D, ¶ 3. As a result of this suspicious activity, SOG executed the search warrant at 507 Pine Street and arrested Wilson. See ECF No. 61, ¶¶ 12, 13; Castagna Investigative Report, Ex. D, ¶ 3.
Phillips is a sergeant and K-9 officer with the City of Jeannette police department. See Phillips Affidavit, ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 2. He was advised by Castagna that a search warrant was to be executed at 507 Pine Street and was asked to be within close proximity once the initial hand search of the residence was conducted. See Phillips Testimony at Omnibus Motion Hearing, ECF No .62 8, p. 4, ¶¶ 15-22. Phillips asserts that he arrived at 507 Pine Street after Wilson was arrested and detained by SOG and had no personal interaction with him. See Phillips Affidavit, ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 5; see generally, Phillips Testimony at Omnibus Motion Hearing, ECF No. 62-8. According to his affidavit, Phillips neither arrested nor transported Wilson from 507 Pine Street. See ECF No. 61, ¶ 14; Phillips Affidavit, Ex. G, ¶¶ 4-9; see also Phillips Testimony at Omnibus Motion Hearing, ECF No. 62-8, p. 5; Trial Testimony, Ex. I, pp. 8-11.
It appears that Wilson's criminal trial commenced in July 2021 but there was a mistrial. See ECF No. 62-10, Ex. J. Wilson's criminal trial is currently scheduled for September 19, 2022.
Phillips' Affidavit is supported by substantial evidence of record, much of which is contemporaneous with the events at issue or otherwise consists of sworn testimony as part of Wilson's criminal proceedings. See ECF No. 62-1, p. 5; Castagna's Investigative Report, ECF No. 62-4; two City of Jeannette Police Department Narratives, ECF Nos. 62-5, 62-6; sworn testimony from November 9, 2020, proceedings, ECF No. 62-8, p. 6; and excerpts of sworn testimony on July 20, 2021, from Wilson's July 2021 jury trial, ECF No. 62-9, p. 9. However, the state court docket identifies Phillips as being the arresting officer. See ECF No. 62-10, p. 4, Ex. J. Phillips does not address the conflict between his evidence and the information contained on the docket.
All of the individuals who were arrested at the scene were transported to the Westmoreland County Prison by county sheriffs. See Investigative Report, ECF No. 62-4, p. 3, ¶ 10. Phillips entered 507 Pine Street only after SOG had detained all individuals who were either inside the home or standing outside. See Phillips Testimony at Omnibus Motion Hearing, ECF No. 62-8 at p. 5, ¶¶ 6-21. He entered the home to conduct a cursory search to make sure that there were no substances or objects that could harm his K-9 dog. See Phillips Affidavit, ECF No. 62-7, ¶¶ 10 11. Concluding that his dog could be harmed due to the presence of narcotics in plain view, he requested that police officers conduct a hand search. See id. at ¶¶ 12, 13. Among other things, the search revealed illegal narcotics, firearms and indicia belonging to Wilson. See ECF No. 62-4, p. 4. Phillips then brought the K-9 into the residence to ensure that they didn't miss anything in conducting the search. See ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 15.
A criminal complaint charging Wilson with multiple offenses was issued on September 13, 2019. (ECF No. 62-1). The offenses with which he was charged included being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession of controlled substances with the intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia and criminal conspiracy. See id. The complaint is signed by both Phillips and Castagna. It includes an affidavit of probable cause, again signed by both officers, that notes, among other things, that Castagna obtained a search warrant for 507 Pine Street, that a search was conducted by Phillips and Castagna, and that among the items found during their search were 12 bricks of heroin, a bag of suspected fentanyl, crack cocaine, $2,328 on the person of Wilson, indicia of Wilson's presence at the location, and three firearms. See id.
Wilson's initial proceeding was held on September 13, 2019, at which time bail was set at $50,000. See ECF No. 62-10, p. 6. He did not post bail and was housed at the Westmoreland County Prison. See Magisterial District Judge docket, Commonwealth v. Wilson, No. MJ-10101-CR-379-2019 at pp. 1-2. His preliminary hearing was originally scheduled for September 26, 2019. Id. at 1. According to the allegations in the Amended Complaint, Wilson requested a continuance because he required more time to retain a private attorney. See ECF No. 12, ¶ 2. His preliminary hearing was rescheduled for October 17, 2019. Commonwealth v. Wilson, Docket No. MJ-10101-CR-379-2019 at p. 1. Wilson requested a second continuance because he had not yet hired an attorney. See id.; see also ECF No. 12, ¶ 2.
The Court takes judicial notice of the state court dockets related to Plaintiff's criminal case at MJ-10101-CR-379-2019 (the Magisterial District Judge docket) and CP-65-CR-4882-2019 (the Court of Common Pleas' docket), which are available to the public online at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us. (Last visited July 20, 2022).
Wilson's preliminary hearing was held on November 7, 2019. See ECF No. 12, ¶ 2. Judge DeMarchis presided over the hearing and ADA Knupp appeared on behalf of the Commonwealth. Wilson alleges that he requested another continuance because he needed more time to obtain private counsel and did not want to proceed pro se. See id. ADA Knupp opposed Plaintiff's request and Judge DeMarchis refused to grant Plaintiff a third continuance. See id. Plaintiff alleges that he “never received or signed any pro-se papers” indicating that he wanted to represent himself pro se at his preliminary hearing. See id.
Castagna testified at the preliminary hearing. See id., ¶ 3. At the end of the preliminary hearing Judge DeMarchis held the charges filed against Wilson over for court. See id. As noted previously, the trial is now scheduled for September 19, 2022.
The state court docket indicates that Wilson posted bail on July 8, 2022. Although the Court expressly advised Wilson that he has a continuing obligation to notify the Court of any change of address (ECF No. 4), he has not updated his address of record to reflect that he is no longer at the Westmoreland County Prison. In fact, Wilson has not communicated with the Court in any manner since April 2021. (See ECF Nos. 51, 52.)
C. Standard and Scope of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the court to enter summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Under this standard “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A disputed fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the case under applicable substantive law. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1078 (3d Cir. 1992). An issue of material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257; Brenner v. Local 514, United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., 927 F.2d 1283, 1287-88 (3d Cir. 1991).
When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact remains for trial, the court must view the record and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in favor of the nonmoving party. See Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1993); Clement v. Consol. Rail Corp., 963 F.2d 599, 600 (3d Cir. 1992); White v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 862 F.2d 56, 59 (3d Cir. 1988). To avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party may not rest on the unsubstantiated allegations of his or her pleadings. Instead, once the movant satisfies its burden of identifying evidence that demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond his pleadings with affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories or other record evidence to demonstrate specific material facts that give rise to a genuine issue. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
Further, under Rule 56, a defendant may seek summary judgment by pointing to the absence of a genuine fact issue on one or more essential claim elements. The Rule mandates summary judgment if the plaintiff then fails to make a sufficient showing on each of those elements. When Rule 56 shifts the burden of production to the nonmoving party, “a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323; see e.g., Harter v. G.A.F. Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 851 (3d Cir. 1992).
The Court's Local Rules provide that in addition to filing a brief in opposition to the moving party's supporting brief, the nonmoving party shall include “[a] separately filed concise statement, which responds to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's Concise Statement of Material Facts.” LCvR 56. The Rule further requires the inclusion of references to the parts of the record that support the statements. See id. The moving party's concise statement of material facts will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the opposing party. See id.
Finally, “[a] party cannot evade these litigation responsibilities in this regard simply by citing the fact that he is a pro se litigant. These rules apply with equal force to all parties.” DeShields v. Dep't of Corr., No. 1:19-CV-198, 2020 WL 1271657, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2020); see also Sanders v. Beard, No. 09-CV-1384, 2010 WL 2853261, at *5 (M.D. Pa. July 20, 2010) (pro se parties “are not excused from complying with court orders and the local rules of court”); Thomas v. Norris, No. 02-CV-01854, 2006 WL 2590488, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2006) (pro se parties must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
D. Discussion
Wilson claims that Phillips violated his Fourth Amendment rights by falsely arresting him. To state a claim for false arrest, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) there was an arrest; and (2) that the arrest was made without probable cause. See, e.g., Wardell v. City of Erie, No. 1:13-CV-201, 2015 WL 6134014, at *8 n.4 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 16, 2015) (citations omitted). Wilson also claims that he was falsely imprisoned. To establish a claim for false imprisonment, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he was detained; and (2) the detention was unlawful. Id. (citations omitted). Just as for false arrest, a plaintiff's claim for “false imprisonment [is] predicated on an arrest made without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Wilson v. Dewees, 977 F.Supp.2d 449, 455 (E.D. Pa 2013). Thus, “if an arrest is supported by probable cause, then there is no constitutional violation and no viable § 1983 claim.” Id.
While it is undisputed that Wilson was arrested and detained, Phillips argues that he is entitled to judgment in his favor because he had no role in arresting or detaining him. Rather, he claims that the SOG arrived at 507 Pine Street and detained Wilson outside of the residence before Phillips arrived. See ECF No. 62-4, ¶¶ 3, 4. Moreover, Phillips' purpose at the scene was to escort his K-9 dog through the home to conduct a drug search. See ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 11. It is uncontroverted that he did not seek the initial search warrant nor was he involved in the surveillance at 507 Pine Street conducted by the SOG. Upon his arrival, Phillips inspected the scene for the safety of the K-9, determined it to be unsafe, and then requested a hand search for narcotics. See ECF No. 62-7, ¶¶ 13-15. Thereafter, the K-9 was brought into the residence to ensure that the search was complete. See ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 15.
Phillips also provides a reading of the GPS signals from his police car which he states confirm he was not present at 507 Pine Street at the time Wilson was detained. See ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 8 at pp. 5-11. This evidence is inconclusive. The GPS record places Phillips at 509 Pine Street (close in distance to 507 Pine Street) from 5:08 p.m. until 7:07 p.m. (17:08-19:07), see ECF No. 62-7, p. 5. Wilson was detained at 7:10 p.m., two minutes after Phillips parked on Pine Street.
As discussed previously, there is substantial evidence of record that support Phillip's contention that it was the SOG that arrested and detained Wilson, and that he conducted a search of 507 Pine Street once all of the suspects were detained. See Criminal Complaint, ECF No. 62-1, p. 11; see also Investigative Report, ECF No. 62-4, ¶¶ 3, 10; City of Jeannette Police Narrative by Phillips, ECF No. 62-5, p. 2; City of Jeannette Policy Department Narrative by Officer Frank Balistreri, ECF No. 62-6, p. 2; Affidavit of James J. Phillips, ECF No. 62-7, ¶ 6; November 9, 2020, Proceedings, ECF No. 62-8, p. 5, ¶¶ 4-9; Trial Excerpt of Castagna, ECF No. 62-9, pp. 8-9, ¶¶ 24, 25, 1-3.
While Wilson has failed to refute any of the facts in Phillips' Concise Statement, which includes contemporaneous corroboration from sources other than Phillips, as to the details of Wilson's arrest and Phillips' lack of involvement, there is at least some evidence in the record that could be interpreted as Phillips having some involvement in his arrest. The criminal complaint was signed by Phillips and the state court docket identifies Phillips as the arresting officer. See ECF 62-10, p. 4, Ex. J.
When determining if genuine issues of material fact remain for trial, the Court must view the record and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the record in favor of the nonmoving party. See, e.g., Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682, 685 (3d Cir. 1993). Thus, based on all of the evidence in the record and viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Wilson, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Phillips arrested Wilson.
Nonetheless, Wilson's claim fails as a matter of law because he has failed to refute Phillips' contention and the supporting evidence that there was probable cause both for his arrest and detention.
Wilson claims he was standing on the sidewalk and was told to “get on the ground” and he “complied with officers [sic] command with out [sic] probable cause...” ECF No. 12, p. 2. However, these minimal factual allegations, coupled with only his bald legal conclusion that there was no probable cause, are insufficient to create an issue of fact regarding probable cause. See James v. Varano, supra. Moreover, Wilson has failed to dispute the substantial evidence of record that supports Phillips' motion for summary judgment.
As Phillips notes, “[P]robable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.” Orsatti v. New Jersey State Police, 71 F.3d 480, 483 (3d Cir. 1995); see also Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 789 (3d Cir. 2000) (holding that “[p]robable cause exists if there is a fair probability that the person committed the crime at issue.” (internal citation omitted)). For Section 1983 false arrest and false imprisonment claims, “[p]robable cause need only exist as to [one of the] offense[s] that could be charged under the circumstances” to defeat those Section 1983 claims as a matter of law. Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 819 (3d Cir. 1994).
The uncontroverted evidence of record regarding the events leading to Wilson's arrest are set forth in Phillips' Concise Statement of Facts and the supporting documents in his appendix. On September 12, 2019, police officers investigated activities at 507 Pine Street in Jeannette, PA 15644. See ECF No. 62-1. Castagna observed a Volkswagen sedan park on the 600 block of Wylie Avenue. See ECF No. 62-3. He observed one man exiting the vehicle and walking into the residence at 507 Pine Street while another man remained in the vehicle. See id. The man who entered 507 Pine Street exited within ten minutes and returned to the parked Volkswagen sedan, where Castagna caught him with a gram of crack cocaine. See id. This transaction, along with pedestrians telling Castagna about vehicles “constantly” parking in the area and people walking downhill from the vehicles toward 507 Pine Street, was the basis for Castagna obtaining a search warrant for 507 Pine Street. See id
Later the same day, Castagna conducted surveillance at 507 Pine Street at approximately 5 p.m. See ECF Nos. 62-1, 62-4, 62-9, pp. 5-10. At that time, he saw a woman sitting in the driver's seat of a sedan parked just outside of 507 Pine Street. See ECF Nos. 62-1, 62-4, 62-9, pp. 5-6. A few minutes later, Castagna saw a different woman enter the residence of 507 Pine Street through a basement door. See ECF Nos. 62-1, 62-4, 62-9, p. 7. A man then separately entered the residence through the same door. See ECF Nos. 62-1, 62-4, 62-9, p. 7.
Castagna then saw Wilson exit the residence's front door and, while standing on the front stoop of the residence, talking to the woman sitting in the parked sedan that was outside of 507 Pine Street. See ECF Nos. 62-1, 62-4, 62-9, p. 8. SOG then arrived at 507 Pine Street and entered the residence at 5:10 p.m. See ECF Nos. 62-1, 62-4, 62-9, pp. 8-9. Wilson was arrested at that time.
Based upon the undisputed record, there was more than sufficient evidence to support probable cause for Wilson's arrest. Multiple vehicles and individuals were seen coming and going from 507 Pine Street in a short window of time in a manner that suggested illegal drug activity. An illegal cocaine transaction occurred at the scene. Wilson was observed entering and exiting the house while multiple individuals were observed entering through the back door, as well as talking with a woman who was parked outside (and who was also arrested). The events observed in and around 507 Pine Street, and Wilson's presence at that property as these events occurred, demonstrated probable cause for Wilson's arrest.
There was also probable cause for Wilson's detention. While Phillips participated in the search of 507 Pine Street, it is undisputed that he had no role or involvement in supplying information, applying for, or obtaining the search warrant. As the record reflects, the subsequent search of the residence yielded significant evidence of criminal activity, including the discovery of heroin, crack cocaine and fentanyl, three firearms, and drug paraphernalia. Indicia of Wilson's presence at the location was also discovered. Wilson had more than $2,000 on his person. Based on the evidence seized and the activities observed at this location, Phillips and Castagna complied with the appropriate procedure by filing a criminal complaint charging Wilson with multiple offenses that included an affidavit of probable cause. At a subsequent preliminary hearing,
Magisterial Judge DeMarchis held the charges filed against Wilson over for court, thus concluding that probable cause existed to support these charges.
Thus, there is no evidence to support Wilson's claim that Phillips wrongfully detained him. After Wilson was arrested, he was transported by county sheriffs to the Westmoreland County Jail. Thereafter, a criminal complaint with affidavit of probable cause was filed by Phillips and Castagna charging Wilson with various offenses. Bond was set but Wilson was unable to post it. A magisterial district judge conducted a preliminary hearing during which Castagna testified and the magistrate judge held the charges over for further proceedings. Simply put, there is no evidence in the record that could support a conclusion by a fact finder that Phillips wrongfully detained Wilson.
Because Wilson's Fourth Amendment claims against Phillips of false arrest and false detention cannot be sustained, Phillips is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law.
Having concluded that Phillips' motion for summary judgment should be granted, the Court need not consider his alternative argument that depending on the outcome of Wilson's upcoming trial, his claims may be barred by issue preclusion or by the holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the Court grant Officer James J. Phillips' Motion for Summary Judgment.
In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)&(C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Rules of Court, the parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of the service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. The failure to file timely objections will constitute a waiver of their appellate rights.