United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
F. SAPORITO, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a pro se prisoner civil rights action. The plaintiff
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action. The plaintiff alleges that prison officials
were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, a
violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel
and unusual punishment, made actionable by 42 U.S.C. §
1983.The only remaining defendants are the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the
“DOC”) and Sgt. Cleaver, a correctional officer
employed by the DOC. For relief, the plaintiff seeks an award
of $11 million in damages.
our prior report recommended dismissal of all claims against
all defendants on substantive grounds, it did not address
defenses or grounds for dismissal pertaining only to specific
defendants. But it is very well established that the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is entitled to
Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit and is not a person
subject to suit under § 1983. See Will v. Mich.
Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989)
(“[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their
official capacities are ‘persons' under §
1983.”); Laskaris v. Thornburgh, 661 F.2d 23,
25 (3d Cir. 1981) (“The eleventh amendment's bar
extends to suits against departments or agencies of the state
having no existence apart from the state.”); see
also Foye v. Wexford Health Sources Inc., 675 Fed.
App'x 210, 215 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam); Beckett
v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs., 597 Fed.App'x 665, 667
(3d Cir. 2015) (per curiam); Tretter v. Pa. Dep't of
Corrs., 558 Fed. App'x 155, 158 (3d Cir. 2014);
Pettaway v. SCI Albion, 487 Fed. App'x 766, 768
(3d Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Hollihan v. Pa. Dep't of
Corrs., 159 F.Supp.3d 502, 510 (M.D. Pa. 2016);
O'Donnell v. Pa. Dep't of Corrs., 790
F.Supp.2d 289, 297-98 & n.8 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
we recommend that the plaintiff's remaining claim against
the DOC be dismissed with prejudice-and without leave to
amend-for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1),
and that this matter be remanded to the undersigned for
further pretrial proceedings with respect to the
plaintiff's remaining claim against the lone remaining
defendant, Sgt. Cleaver.
IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the
foregoing Report and Recommendation dated May 20, 2019. Any
party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation
pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed
findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or
matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a
recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a
habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the
clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all
parties, written objections which shall specifically identify
the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or
report to which objection is made and the basis for such
objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule
72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made and
may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The
judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her
discretion or where required by law, and may consider the
record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or
her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge
may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
to file timely objections to the foregoing Report and
Recommendation may constitute a waiver of any appellate
 The plaintiff originally asserted
several other civil rights claims, but all other claims have
been dismissed with prejudice as frivolous or for failure to
state a claim. See Brooking v. D.O.C., No.
3:15-CV-02134, 2019 WL 355727 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2019) (Doc.
15; Doc. 16); see also Brooking v. D.O.C., Civil
Action No. 3:15-cv-02134, 2018 WL 7140232 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 28,
2018) (Doc. 13), report and recommendation adopted in
part and rejected in part by 2019 WL 355727 (M.D. Pa.
Jan. 29, 2019) (Doc. 15; Doc. 16).
 The plaintiff originally sought
recovery against three additional named defendants: (a) Ms.
Zobitne, unit manager of A-Block at SCI Camp Hill; (b) C/O
Harrison, a correctional officer on A-Block at SCI Camp Hill;
and (c) T. Williams, a DOC hearing examiner. But all claims
against these three defendants have been dismissed with
prejudice, and they have been terminated by the Clerk as
party-defendants in this action. See Brooking, 2019
WL 355727 (Doc. 15; Doc. 16); see also Brooking,
2018 WL 7140232 (Doc. 13).
 Although the plaintiff has requested
“injunctive relief” in his pro se
complaint, he has failed to specify any particular form of
injunctive relief he would like to receive as a remedy for
his alleged injury. The form of relief requested, however, is
immaterial to both grounds upon which we ...