Dooley v. Wetzel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CASEY DOOLEY, : : 3:18-CV-1310 Plaintiff, : : (JUDGE MARIANI) V. : (Magistrate Judge Saporito) JOHNE.WETZEL, Secretary ofthe Pa. D.O.C., et al., : Defendants. : ORDER AND NOW, THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 28) and all other relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED to the extent consistent with this Order.

2. For the reasons set forth in the R&R (Doc. 28, at 20-24) and in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's opinion in Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2020), Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1-1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) and WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

3. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within 45 days of the date of this Order.

4. Defendants’ Objections (Doc. 29) to the R&R are OVERRULED.

9. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint/Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 5) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

6. Plaintiffs motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. 31) is DEEMED MOOT.

7. The Clerk of Court is directed to remand this case to Magistrate Judge Saporito for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

S a (ia ten obert D. Mariani United States District Judge