The opinion of the court was delivered by: Magistrate Judge Blewitt
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On March 24, 2010, Plaintiff, Michael E. Wilson, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Huntingdon"), originally filed the instant civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred Plaintiff's case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania by Order of March 31, 2010. The matter was filed in this Court on April 2, 2010, and docketed to the above-captioned case number. Plaintiff's original Complaint was not forwarded to this Court at the time his case was transferred to this District. Rather, the Court obtained a copy of Plaintiff's original Complaint from the Warden of SCI-Huntingdon, and it was docketed to the above-captioned action on April 22, 2010. (Doc. 10). Additionally, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff also filed a Supplement to his Complaint on April 12, 2010 (Doc. 7), namely, a copy of Plaintiff's March 23, 2008 grievance in which he complained about his March 12, 2008 tonsil surgery in an Altoona, Pennsylvania, hospital, as well as a copy of his docket sheet from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff's original claim was set forth on a form § 1983 complaint which is routinely provided to pro se litigants. See Doc. 10.*fn1 Plaintiff's original Complaint did not specify any conduct, wrongful or otherwise, of a properly named defendant. The Defendants named in the original Complaint were: Altoona Hospital; SCI-Huntingdon Prison; and the Department of Corrections ("DOC"). (Doc. 10, p. 1).
Plaintiff simply alleged in his original Statement of Claim as follows:
I had the surgery to get my tonsils removed on March 12, 2008 and stayed in the Altoona Hospital until March 13, 2008[.] Then I went to the (Infermery) (sic) at (Smithfield State Prison) and while the nurse was at the door talking to me at breakfast time I was listening while drinking my milk and the milk started just running out of my nose and she said that is not supposed to happen. The date was March 17, 2008. My nose still drips when I drink liquids. (Doc. 10, p. 4, Section V, Statement of Claim).*fn2
In his Exhibit filed with his original Complaint, i.e. his March 23, 2008 grievance # 223373, Plaintiff stated that his March 12, 2008 operation at an Altoona, Pennsylvania, hospital was "botched and as a result I have food and drink coming out of my nose when I eat or drink [and] no one seems to care." (Doc. 7).
After conducting the required screening pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), we issued an Order on April 27, 2010, which directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within fifteen (15) days of the date of said Order. The 7-page Order specified in detail the deficiencies of Plaintiff's original Complaint. Said Order further stated that Plaintiff's failure to timely file his amended complaint would result in the issuance of a report and recommendation that his action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Doc. 11).
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Amend his Complaint (Doc. 12), which was granted by Order of May 13, 2010, and which afforded Plaintiff until June 1, 2010 to file his amended complaint. (Doc. 13).
The time in which Plaintiff was to have filed his amended complaint has expired. The Court, sua sponte, gave the pro se Plaintiff an additional seventeen (17) days to file his amended complaint. The Plaintiff has neither filed his amended complaint nor requested an additional extension of time in which to do so. In fact, the Court has received no filings from the Plaintiff since he filed his Motion for Extension of Time on May 12, 2010. (Doc. 12).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), in proceedings in forma pauperis, a court shall dismiss a claim if it determines that the claim "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." See Nelson v. Dauphin County Prison, 2009 WL 4269087 (M.D. Pa.). Pro se litigants, such as Plaintiff, are accorded substantial deference in federal court. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 ...