TALLEY v. PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al, No. 2:2019cv00308 - Document 43 (W.D. Pa. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 39 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 36 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by SCI-FAYETTE'S MAILROOM, SHELLEY MANKEY, TRICIA SILBAUGH, SECRETARY'S OF INMATE GRIEVANCES AND APPEALS, TOM WOLFE, RENE ADAMS, MARK C. After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections do not undermine the recomme ndation of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, the motion to dismiss will be granted in its entirety based on Plaintiffs failure to state a claim.The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims Plaintiff has brought against the Defendants and, as a result, these claims will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. An appropriate Order will be entered. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 6/5/20. (cjo)

Download PDF
TALLEY v. PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS et al Doc. 43 Case 2:19-cv-00308-NBF-CRE Document 43 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA QUINTEZ TALLEY, Plaintiff, v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2: 19-cv-0308 United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer MEMORANDUM OPINION This prisoner civil rights suit was commenced on March 19, 2019, and referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. Plaintiff’s operative pleading is the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35), to which Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 36). The Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”), dated May 22, 2020, recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and that this case be dismissed for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff filed timely objections to the R&R. (ECF No. 42). The filing of timely objections requires the court to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00308-NBF-CRE Document 43 Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 2 Fed.R.Civ.P.72(b)(3). In doing so, the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations contained in the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in this case, together with the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, the motion to dismiss will be granted in its entirety based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. The Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims Plaintiff has brought against the Defendants and, as a result, these claims will be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. An appropriate Order will be entered. Dated: June 5, 2020 BY THE COURT: s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge cc: QUINTEZ TALLEY KT 5091 SCI Fayette 48 Overlook Drive Labelle, PA 15450 (via U.S. First Class Mail) All Counsel of Record (via ECF electronic notification)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.