Opinion
1:22-CV-111
07-07-2023
WILLIAM HAROLD WRIGHT, JR., Plaintiff, v. WARDEN HUTCHISON, et al, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, United States District Judge.
This action was received by the Clerk of Court on April 1, 2022, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lanzillo, for report and recommendation 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.
In this action, Plaintiff alleges that officials at FCI McKean violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff claims that he was placed on disciplinary sanction which included mattress restriction for sixty days. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges he was denied adequate toilet paper, cleaning supplies, and hot showers, and that he was prevented from obtaining medical care. ECF No. 9. Defendants are Warden Hutchison, UDC Team Officers Gabriel and Ezzolo, and Lt. Blankenship of FCI McKean. Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at FCI McKean having been transferred to FCI Otisville.
On May 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order, which this Court liberally construes as seeking release from his current housing assignment in the Special Housing Unit at FCI Otisville. ECF No. 51.
On June 6, 2023, Magistrate Judge Lanzillo issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiffs motion be denied because the request for injunctive relief was wholly disconnected from the underlying claims in the complaint. ECF No. 53.
Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 55.
“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'” EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify-in whole or in part- the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72(D)(2).
As Judge Lanzillo found, the relief that Plaintiff seeks by way of a temporary restraining order is wholly unrelated to the underlying legal claims in Plaintiff s complaint in this case. This is fatal to Plaintiffs request for injunctive relief in this case. Moreover, FCI-Otisville, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, is outside the jurisdiction of this Court.
A review of his Objections reveals that Plaintiff is confusing the instant action with another pending civil rights action that is not assigned to the undersigned but is assigned solely to Magistrate Judge Lanzillo. See C.A. l:22-cv-150, Wright v. CMC Allen, Counselor Ezzolo, and Case Manager Gabriel.
After de novo review of the complaint, the motion for temporary restraining order, and the opposition thereto, together with the report and recommendation and objections, the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2023;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for temporary restraining order [ECF No. 51] is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Lanzillo, issued on June 6,2023 [ECF No. 53] is adopted as the opinion of the court.