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.

Akins v. Kasheta

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


September 29, 2006

RICHARD C. AKINS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHN KASHETA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Kosik

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

AND NOW, THIS 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2006, IT APPEARING TO THE COURT THAT:

[1] On August 31, 2006, plaintiff filed the above-captioned action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against "John Kasheta and Waymart Staff;" (Doc. 1)

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

[3] Akins' complaint asserts that the defendant Kasheta, "is constantly harassing me and breaking my confidentiality;"

[4] the plaintiff specifically accuses the defendant of revealing to other inmates what the plaintiff said in his team meeting;

[5] the complaint requests $100,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in punitive damages;

[6] on September 11, 2006, Magistrate Judge Blewitt reviewed the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and issued a Report and Recommendation suggesting that we: (1) dismiss Akins' claim against "Waymart Staff" as said defendant is not a person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) dismiss Akins' claims for harassment against defendant Kasheta as verbal harassment alone does not violate a protected liberty interest or deny a prisoner equal protection of the law; and, (3) dismiss Akins' claims against defendant Kasheta for breaking plaintiff's confidentiality as the claim fails to set forth a violation of privacy claim recognized under § 1983; (Doc. 7)

[7] neither the plaintiff, nor the defendants, filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:

[8] 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 (3d. Cir. 1987);

[9] having examined the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, we agree with his recommendations;

[10] we concur with the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the plaintiff's complaint and find the Magistrate Judge's review of the record to be comprehensive;

[11] specifically, we agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to set forth any cognizable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

[1] the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt dated September 11, 2006 (Doc. 7) is adopted;

[2] the plaintiff'scomplaint is dismissed in its entirety for failure to state any Constitutional claim against the defendants on which relief may be granted; and,

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

Edwin M. Kosik United States District Judge

20060929

© 1992-2006 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.