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.

Randy andrew Ramer v. Mary Long

March 10, 2010

RANDY ANDREW RAMER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARY LONG, RON WELLER, AND DANIEL SHOOP, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III

Hon. Malachy E. Mannion

MEMORANDUM

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS:

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 55), filed on November 30, 2010, which recommends that we grant the Defendants' converted Motion for Summary Judgment.*fn1 (Doc. 37). As a result of this recommendation, Magistrate Judge Mannion recommends that several miscellaneous motions be dismissed as moot.

Pro se Plaintiff Andrew Ramer ("Plaintiff" or "Ramer") has filed several documents in objection to the R&R, to which Defendants have responded.*fn2 (Docs. 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64 and 68). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for our disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Defendants' converted Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted and this case shall be closed.

I. BACKGROUND

This case has a lengthy and meandering procedural background, which for the sake of judicial economy shall not be recited herein. Rather, the Court refers the reader to pages 3 to 9 of the R&R for a full exposition of the procedural history. In short, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint brings a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for deprivation of constitutional rights against Defendants Mary Long, Ron Weller and Daniel Shoop.*fn3 In addition, it would appear that Plaintiff is attempting to set forth a claim pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., based upon the Defendants' failure to provide him with shelter during a period of displacement from his home.

The action arises out of the following set of facts, gleaned from the submissions of the parties. Ramer, who is mentally impaired, lives with his parents, sister and sister's three minor children. In September of 1999, the Plaintiff was suspected of molesting his minor niece, with whom he lives. On October 6, 1999, Northumberland County Children and Youth Services ("NCCYS") received a Child Protective Services referral alleging the sexual abuse of the minor child. The child was interviewed on two separate occasions in October 1999, and on both occasions, confirmed the allegations. The Plaintiff was also interviewed and confirmed the allegations.*fn4

Plaintiff was ultimately acquitted of criminal charges arising out of the aforementioned facts, however, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Child Protective Services Act ("CPSA"), 23 Pa. C. S. § 6310, et seq., the case was considered and "indicated case" of sexual assault based upon the Plaintiff's admission of the events. See 23 Pa. C. S. § 6303(a)(An "indicted report" is a child abuse report made if an investigation by the county agency or the Department of Public Welfare determines that substantial evidence of the alleged abuse exists based upon, inter alia, an admission of the acts of abuse by the perpetrator). Pursuant to the CPSA, the information was relayed to the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare via the ChildLine Registry.*fn5

Subsquently, almost ten years later, on July 26, 2009, Ramer was cited by the Pennsylvania State Police ("PSP") for, inter alia, making sexual gestures towards three individuals, one of whom was a nine-year old child. NCCYS became aware of this incident on or around August 26, 2009. At that time, Defendant Weller, a caseworker of NCCYS, visited Ramer at his parent's house, where he was still residing with his parents, sister and her three minor children. Upon inquiry, Weller was informed by Ramer's father that Ramer was allowed to reside in the family home with the three minor children pursuant to a safety plan, previously put into place by NCCYS, that prohibited Plaintiff from being left alone with the minor children.

Two days later, Defendant Long, also a NCCYS employee, contacted Northumberland County Adult Probation to inquire about the charges against the Plaintiff and was informed that the charges were still pending. Defendant Long also called the PSP Corporal who issued Ramer's citation. The Corporal reported that Ramer made gestures imitating masturbation to three individuals, including the nine-year old girl. In addition, NCCYS was informed that there were additional allegations against Ramer indicating that he had harassed another female victim by calling her repeatedly and asking for a date.*fn6

On September 1, 2009, Defendant Weller contacted Defendant Shoop, the probation officer assigned to Ramer's case, to obtain more information about Ramer. Defendant Shoop informed Defendant Weller that he had limited information at the time, but knew that Ramer had received a citation for harassing and making sexual gestures towards three victims, one of which was a nine year-old girl.

On September 2, 2009, Defendant Weller called the ChildLine Registry to check the Plaintiff's history and was informed about the 1999 incident involving Ramer's niece. Following the receipt of this information, Defendant Weller returned to the Ramer residence and informed the Ramer family that Plaintiff could not reside there with the minor children while the investigation into the July 2009 charges were pending. After discussing the matter, and although upset with the situation, the family agreed that Plaintiff would thereafter stay with his uncle at his home nearby until the investigation was complete.

On September 8, 2009, six days after Plaintiff was removed from the Ramer home, Defendant Weller contacted the Ramer family to inform them that Plaintiff was permitted to return home, but that he was still not permitted to have unsupervised ...


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.