Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BARTELLI v. ROMANOWSKI

November 18, 2005.

KEITH BARTELLI, Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL ROMANOWSKI, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDWIN KOSIK, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AND NOW, THIS 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT THAT:

[1] On April 26, 2004, plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Paul Romanowski, Wayne Cole, Dan Douglas, and Donald Jones, all staff members at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas (SCI Dallas), Pennsylvania;

  [2] the matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt;

  [3] on October 29, 2004, this court adopted in part a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed the claims against defendants Douglas and Cole for failure to state a cognizable claim;

  [4] we further directed that Bartelli's complaint be served upon defendants Romanowski and Jones; (Doc. 13)

  [5] plaintiff's complaint asserts two claims: (1) that defendant Romanowski filed a misconduct against Bartelli, who was subsequently adjudged guilty by defendant Jones, and terminated the inmate's employment after the plaintiff filed a grievance against Romanowski on March 15, 2001; and, (2) that on March 25, 2001, defendant Romanowski conspired with other SCI Dallas staff at a support team hearing to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining any future employment in skill positions;*fn1

  [6] the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings, on May 26, 2005; (Doc. 52)

  [7] both parties briefed the motion for summary judgment;

  [8] Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation on September 23, 2005, suggesting that we grant the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as the plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies and because his claims are time-barred by the statute of limitations, and further recommended that we grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment;

  [9] neither the plaintiff, nor the defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.*fn2 IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:

  [10] If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of the plaintiff's claims. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985). Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district court is to give "reasoned consideration" to a magistrate judge's report prior to adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3rd Cir. 1987);

  [11] having examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, we agree with his recommendation to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment and for judgment on the pleadings;

  [12] we concur with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the issues raised in the defendants' motion and find the Magistrate Judge's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.