IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM D. TURNER, No. 4:18-CV-00361

Plaintiff, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Saporito)

CORRECTION CARE SOLUTION, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 William D. Turner filed this amended

complaint alleging that Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care with respect to his Hepatitis C.1 Several defendants were previously dismissed from this action after the Court adopted in part an earlier Report and Recommendation and granted in part two motions to dismiss.2 The remaining defendants thereafter filed motions for summary judgment, and Turner filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.3 Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., has issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny as moot Turner’s motion for a preliminary injunction, dismiss claims

1 Doc. 46. Turner amended his complaint after this Court dismissed his first complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 41). 2 Doc. 79. against Ma Kuren and deny as moot Kuren’s motion for summary judgment, and grant Defendants Correction Care Solution, Tony Ianuzzy, Haresh Pandya’s motion

for summary judgment.4 After receiving an extension of time, Turner filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation, and objects to certain portions of Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and Recommendation.5 Where no objection is made to a specific

portion of a report and recommendation, this Court will review that portion only for clear error.6 Conversely, “[i]f a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”7 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.8 Having reviewed the record, the Court finds no error

in Magistrate Judge Saporito’s thorough Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4 Doc. 138. 5 Doc. 141. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed). 7 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch,

(3d Cir. 2017) (quoting

(b)(1)). 8

(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 138) is ADOPTED;

2. Turner’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 103) is DENIED as moot; 3. Turner’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are

DISMISSED; 4. Turner’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim is DISMISSED; 5. Turner’s claims against Defendant Ma Kuren are DISMISSED

for misjoinder and Turner’s request to file a second amended complaint to substitute Mary-Joy Monsalud in Kuren’s place is DENIED as futile;

6. Kuren’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 98) is DENIED as moot; 7. Defendants Pandya, Ianuzzy, and Correction Care Solution’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 95) is GRANTED as to

Turner’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim; 8. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Turner’s state law claims, and REMANDS those claims to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania; and

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

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge