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.

Molina v. McGarvie

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

March 3, 2014

MIGUEL MOLINA, Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY McGARVIE, et al., Defendants.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, Magistrate Judge.

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that:

1. Defendant McGarvie's motion to dismiss, herein treated as a motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 18], be granted;
2. Defendant O'Rourke's motion to dismiss, herein treated as a motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 33], be granted; and
3. Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims against Defendant Kim Smith [ECF No. 30] be granted, and Defendant Smith's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 27] be dismissed as moot.

By virtue of the foregoing, this case should be terminated and the Clerk should mark the case closed.

II. REPORT

A. Relevant Procedural History

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest in Marienville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Forest"), initiated this civil rights action on June 21, 2013, by filing a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, against Defendants Nancy McGarvie ("McGarvie"), Medical Director at SCI-Forest; Kim Smith ("Smith"), Health Care Administrator at SCI-Forest; and Beverly O'Rourke ("O'Rourke"), Certified Registered Nurse Practitioner at SCI-Forest.

In his pro se complaint, Plaintiff claims that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution. As relief for his claims, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages.

On September 25, 2013, Defendant McGarvie filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 18], arguing that Plaintiff's claims against her should be dismissed because they fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff filed a timely brief in opposition to Defendant McGarvie's motion on October 3, 2013 [ECF No. 24].

Defendant Smith filed her own motion to dismiss on October 17, 2013 [ECF No. 27]; however, in response, Plaintiff filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss his claims against Defendant Smith [ECF No. 30], which has not yet been granted.[1]

On November 1, 2013, Defendant O'Rourke filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 33], also arguing that Plaintiff's claims against her should be dismissed because they fail to state claims upon which relief may be granted. Attached to the brief in support of Defendant O'Rourke's motion are copies of Plaintiff's grievance records for this Court's review and consideration [ECF No. 34-1]. As a result, the Court issued an Order notifying Plaintiff that Defendant O'Rourke's motion may be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby instructing Plaintiff to file with his response any opposing documentary evidence he would like the Court to ...


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.