The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. Richard Caputo United States District Judge
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE SCHWAB)
Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 136) recommending that Plaintiff David E. Kates' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 111) be denied. Because the motion addresses matters unrelated to the claims in this case, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
Plaintiff, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, commenced this Bivens action on March 1, 2011. The Complaint names B.A. Bledsoe, the Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg ("USP Lewisburg"), and Harley G. Lappin, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as the Defendants in this action.
The Complaint raises claims regarding the conditions of Plaintiff's confinement at
USP Lewisburg. (Compl.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he is kept in his cell twenty-three
(23) to twenty-four (24) hours per day, the cell can reach 120 degrees due to improper ventilation, the cell is rat and roach infested, and the cell has rust around the toilet, chipped lead paint, and traces of asbestos. (Id.) Due to these conditions, Plaintiff's health has deteriorated, as he has lost weight and suffered from insomnia and respiratory problems. (Id.)
On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief. (Doc. 111.) According to Plaintiff, he was brutally beaten and denied timely medical care in May 2012. As a result, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining officers from retaliating, harassing, assaulting, poisoning, or otherwise harming him in any manner.
The Magistrate Judge recommends the motion be denied. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge noted that the Complaint raises claims for the alleged intolerable living conditions in Plaintiff's cell, while the instant motion raises unrelated claims regarding abuse and denial of medical care. And, because a court may not grant preliminary injunctive relief when the issues raised are entirely different from those raised in the complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommends Plaintiff's motion be denied.
Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff argues that he was assaulted and denied medical care because he commenced this legal proceeding and also because he has filed administrative grievances against various prison officials. Thus, he asserts that the assault and denial of medical care are related to the claims in this action contrary to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Where objections to the Magistrate Judge's report are filed, the court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). However, this only applies to the extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6--7 (3d Cir.1984) (emphasis added). In conducting a de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829 F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Although the review is de novo, the law permits the court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675--76, 100 S. Ct. 2406, 65 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7; Ball v. United States Parole Comm'n, 849 F.Supp. 328, 330 (M.D. Pa.1994). Uncontested portions of the report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the ...