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.

Randolph v. FCI Allenwood (Med)

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

May 17, 2018

SAMIRA RANDOLPH, Plaintiff
v.
FCI ALLENWOOD (MED), et al., Defendants

          Carlson Judge

          ORDER

          Yvette Kane, District Judge

         Before the Court in the above-captioned action are the April 24, 2018 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. No. 24), recommending dismissal of Plaintiff Samira Randolph's amended complaint (Doc. No. 6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and Plaintiff's belatedly-filed May 14, 2018 objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25).[1] Specifically, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for violations of the First and Fourth Amendments arising out of Plaintiff's attempts to visit her inmate-fiancé at the Federal Correctional Institution at Allenwood, Pennsylvania (“FCI-Allenwood”).[2] (Doc. No. 24 at 11-29.)

         Having reviewed Plaintiff's two-page objection in conjunction with Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation, the Court is persuaded by Magistrate Judge Carlson's sound reasoning supporting his findings and recommendations, and finds that Magistrate Judge Carlson correctly and comprehensively resolved the substance of Plaintiff's objection in the Report and Recommendation itself. Accordingly, the Court will not write separately to address Plaintiff's objection, except as noted in the margin.[3]

         ACCORDINGLY, on this 17th day of May 2018, upon independent review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

         1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 24), of Magistrate Judge Carlson;

         2. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. No. 25), is OVERRULED;

         3. Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16), is GRANTED;

         4. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. No. 6), is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

         5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

---------

Notes:

[1]Pursuant to Local Rule 72.2, an objection to a Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, as the Report and Recommendation was filed on April 24, 2018, any objection to the pending Report and Recommendation was due, at the latest, by May 11, 2018. Thus, Plaintiff's objection is untimely. Notwithstanding its untimeliness, the Court will consider Plaintiff's objection.

[2] After the Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint was briefed, but before Magistrate Judge Carlson issued his Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “amended complaint.” (Doc. No. 23.) However, as Plaintiff previously filed an amended complaint in this matter after the issuance of an initial screening Report and Recommendation identifying defects in her original complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), Plaintiff was required to seek leave of court before filing another amended complaint, which she failed to do. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) (“In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.”). More importantly, a review of the document Plaintiff captions an amended complaint reveals that the document is not an amended complaint, but rather a listing of constitutional and statutory claims, many of which were previously asserted in the operative ...


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.