The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge James M. Munley United States District Court
Before the court are plaintiff's objections (Doc. 43) to the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Malchy E. Mannion (Doc. 30), which proposes we dismiss the instant case as untimely filed.
This case arises out of a beating that plaintiff allegedly endured while incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Allenwood, Pennsylvania. (See Complaint (Doc. 1) at 2). Plaintiff contends that on November 2, 2004, two fellow inmates attacked him using padlocks attached to belts. (Id.). Those inmates hit him repeatedly in the face and head. (Id.). The beating caused plaintiff to black out; he suffered a serious concussion and had cuts all over his face. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges Defendant Troy Williamson, the prison's warden, knew that the attack would occur and did nothing to prevent it. (Id.). After the incident occurred, plaintiff filed a grievance at the prison, but received no response. (Id. at 1). On August 2, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of the Fed.
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), seeking compensation of $777,999 and a twenty-year reduction in his sentence. (Id. at 3). He contends that he suffered physical, emotional and mental injuries that amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. (Id.).
The magistrate judge ordered the complaint served on October 29, 2007 (Doc. 15). After being served with the complaint, Defendant Williamson filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 19). The parties then briefed the issue, and on June 20, 2008 Magistrate Judge Mannion issued the instant report and recommendation (Doc. 30), which concluded that the court should dismiss the case because the statute of limitations had run before the plaintiff filed his case. When the plaintiff failed to file objections in a timely fashion, this court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and closed the case. (Doc. 31). Plaintiff thereafter sought several continuances, and the court granted additional time for him to file objections to the report and recommendation. On November 17, 2008, plaintiff filed those objections, bringing the case to its present posture.
As the plaintiff brings this case based on the allegedly unconstitutional activities of federal officials, the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").
In disposing of objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C); see also Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 877 (3d Cir. 1987). This court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The district court may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). When a 12(b)(6) motion is filed, the sufficiency of a complaint's allegations are tested. The issue is whether the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, support a claim upon which relief can be granted. In deciding a 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and give the pleader the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can fairly be drawn therefrom, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997).
The magistrate judge found that plaintiff complaint should be dismissed because the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff filed objections to this opinion, but does not point to any specific portions of the magistrate judge's opinion that he found to be in error. Instead, plaintiff's objections include portions of a printed manual on prison litigation. He apparently contends that he has stated a claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to protecting his security in prison, and should therefore be liable. Neither plaintiff's written objections nor the printed material included in his filing, however, address the statute of limitations issue that the ...