The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Kosik
Before this court are the plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 76) docketed on December 9, 2005, and his "Object to Memorandum and Order," construed as a Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc. 75) docketed on December 16, 2005. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the plaintiff's Objections and deny his Motion for Reconsideration. We will not disturb our November 18, 2005 Order (Doc. 72) entering judgment in favor of the defendants and closing this case.
On February 5, 2003, the plaintiff filed his initial 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Bartelli v. Beard, et al., 03-CV-0234, against the present defendants and dozens of other staff members at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas, Pennsylvania (SCI Dallas), as well as officials in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. On April 14, 2003, we adopted a Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt, dismissed Bartelli's claims against some of the defendants, and remanded the matter to the Magistrate Judge to direct the plaintiff to refile an amended complaint that comported with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 20(a). Bartelli v. Beard, et al., 03-CV-0234, Doc. 14. Magistrate Judge Blewitt then filed an order giving the plaintiff fifteen (15) days to file an amended complaint that contained only the claims and defendants that were related to the same transactions or occurrences and that had common legal and factual bases. Bartelli v. Beard, et al., 03-CV-0234, Doc. 15.
The plaintiff subsequently filed motions seeking an extension of time to file the amended complaint and to stay the proceedings. Bartelli v. Beard, et al., 03-CV-0234, Docs. 16-18. In the motion to stay, Bartelli acknowledged that he had not exhausted all administrative remedies related to the actions of SCI staff at issue in the litigation. Bartelli v. Beard, et al., 03-CV-0234, Doc. 18. We entered an order on May 22, 2003, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice due to his failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 e(a). Bartelli v. Beard, et al., 03-CV-0234, Doc. 20.
The plaintiff filed the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 26, 2004, against Paul Romanowski, Wayne Cole, Dan Douglas, and Donald Jones, all staff members at SCI Dallas. In his complaint, the plaintiff claims that: (1) defendant Romanowski filed misconduct report number A111888 against the plaintiff and prematurely terminated the plaintiff's prison employment in retaliation for Bartelli's filing a grievance, Dal-0201-01, against the defendant on March 15, 2001; and, (2) at the hearing on the misconduct report, on or about March 25, 2001, defendants Romanowki, Cole and Douglas "conspired to retaliate against [Bartelli] and preventing [Bartelli] from obtaining any future employment in skill positions." (Doc. 1). On April 28, 2004, this court issued a Standing Practice Order informing the plaintiff, among other procedural issues, of his obligation to notify the court in the event that he was transferred to a new prison. (Doc. 4). The matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt, who preliminarily screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and authored a Report and Recommendation on June 2, 2004. (Doc. 7). The Magistrate Judge suggested dismissing the both claims in the plaintiff's complaint due to expiration of the statute of limitations, and as an additional reason, recommended dismissing the conspiracy claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On October 29, 2004, this court adopted in part the Report and Recommendation and dismissed claim two of the complaint, the conspiracy claim, but permitted the plaintiff to proceed against defendants Romanowski and Jones on the retaliation claim. (Doc. 13). We determined that dismissal on the basis of the expiration of statute of limitations was inappropriate at preliminary review. Rather, this court held that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense to be raised by the defendant in a responsive pleading.
The remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings on May 26, 2005. (Doc. 52). Both parties briefed the motion. (Docs. 61, 65, and 68). Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a Report and Recommendation on September 23, 2005, suggesting that we grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings and enter judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. (Doc. 69). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that: (1) Bartelli's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations; (2) the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings should be granted as the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his claims; (3) summary judgment should be entered in favor of defendant Romanowski because he established that he had no authority to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining future work in other positions in the prison and, therefore, could not have retaliated against Bartelli as alleged in the complaint; and, (4) summary judgment should be entered in favor of defendant Jones as he had no personal involvement in the adjudication of the misconduct report at issue.
Neither party objected to the Report and Recommendation within the time allotted by the Local Rules. On October 5, 2005, Bartelli filed a notice of change of address, indicating that he had been transferred from SCI Dallas to SCI Huntingdon. (Doc. 70). Bartelli filed another document on October 5, 2005, alleging that staff at both SCI Huntingdon and SCI Dallas interfered with his legal mail, and requesting an extension of time, until roughly October 8, 2005, to file objections to the various Report and Recommendations entered in his numerous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuits before this court. Neither the change of address, nor the document alleging interference with the plaintiff's mail referenced any case by name or provided any docket numbers.*fn1
Bartelli did not file objections by October 8, 2005, as he had indicated in his Motion for Extension of Time. On November 18, 2005, we adopted the Report and Recommendation by a Memorandum and Order, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment or for judgment on the pleadings, entered judgment in favor of the defendant, and closed this case. (Doc. 72). On November 25, 2005, the plaintiff filed two letters with this court in which he complained that staff at SCI Huntingdon interfered with his legal mail. (Doc. 73). The plaintiff dated the letters November 17, 2005, and labeled the document, "Re: Receipt of Returned Documents By The Clerk Of Court For Middle District Regarding Notification Of Governmental Interference With Access To The Court In The Matters Of 3:CV-04-0900, 0907, 0908, 0909, and 0910."*fn2 Bartelli also filed his own affidavit with documents that he contends support his claims of governmental interference. (Doc. 73, Exhibits). On December 6, 2005, Bartelli filed additional exhibits labeled, "Proof of Governmental Interference." (Doc. 74). On both of the latter documents, the plaintiff listed multiple cases or failed to provide case numbers, in contravention of Magistrate Judge Blewitt's March 9, 2005 Order.
05-CV-1285. Bartelli appears to take pride in his prolific filings. He includes "litigation" among his "Activities in Prison" noted on a dating web site on which he posted his profile and photograph. See Keith Bartelli .
On November 28, 2005, Bartelli signed an "Objection to Report and Recommendation," docketed by this court on December 9, 2005. (Doc. 76). Bartelli subsequently filed an "Object to Memorandum and Order." (Doc. 75). The latter document was signed by the plaintiff on December 3, 2005, and docketed by this court on December 16, 2005. We will review the former document as objections to the Report and Recommendation of September 23, 2005, and the latter as a motion for reconsideration of this court's November 18, 2005 Order entering judgment in favor of the defendants.*fn3
I. Objections To Report And Recommendation
When objections are filed to a Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, we must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); see Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989). In doing so we may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3. Although our review is de novo, we are permitted to rely upon the Magistrate Judge's proposed recommendations to the extent we, in the exercise of sound discretion, deem proper. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 2413 (1980). Local Rule ...