Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

BARTELLI v. ROMANOWSKI

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania


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 review of the record to be comprehensive;

  [13] specifically, we agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted because the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and because plaintiff's claims are time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations;

  [14] we further agree with the Magistrate Judge's determination that summary judgment should be entered in favor of the defendants as they have submitted uncontested evidence to establish that no retaliatory action was taken by defendant Romanowski against the plaintiff, and that defendant Jones had no personal involvement in the adjudication of the misconduct, as the misconduct was handled through informal institutional resolution and not presented to a hearing examiner.*fn3

  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

  [1] the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt dated September 23, 2005 (Doc. 69) is adopted;

  [2] the defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 52) is granted;

  [3] judgment is entered in favor of the defendants, Paul Romanowski and Donald Jones, and against the plaintiff, Keith Bartelli; and

  [4] the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case, and forward a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Magistrate Judge.

20051118

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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