UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DARRYL ANTHONY LYONS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-01892

v. (MEHALCHICK, J.)

SUPT. SALAMON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Darryl A. Lyons (“Lyons”) filed this lawsuit in the Western District of Pennsylvania on October 5, 2021. The suit is filed against various public officials associated with the Pennsylvania Correctional Institute, Rockview including Superintendent Salamon (“Salamon”). (Doc. 1). On November 5, 2021, the Western District of Pennsylvania transferred this matter to this Court. (Doc. 4). On December 22, 2021, Lyons filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7). On December 22, 2021, Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab granted Lyons’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10). In response to various motions to dismiss filed by various sets of defendants, on August 21, 2023, Judge Schwab issued a report and recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss all claims except for certain claims against Defendants Salamon, Unit Manager Clark, Ms. Olson, and COI Curtis (collectively, “the the remaining defendants”). (Doc. 55). Judge Sylvia H. Rambo adopted Judge Schwab’s recommendation on September 28, 2023. (Doc. 57). On April 23, 2024, Lyons filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 65). On December 16, 2024, the the remaining defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 73). This case was reassigned to the undersigned on August 30, 2024, and referred to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo on January 23, 2025. After the parties’ motions for summary judgment were ripe, Judge Caraballo evaluated the motions and issued a report and recommendation (the “Report”) on July 31, 2025. (Doc. 84). Judge Caraballo recommended that Lyons’s motion for summary judgment be denied, the the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted, and that this action be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 84). In the Report, Judge Caraballo informed the parties that they had fourteen days to file an objection to the Report. (Doc. 84, at 36). On August 14, 2025, the remaining defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to file an objection to the Report and the Court granted the motion and informed the remaining defendants that

they had until September 15, 2025, to file an objection. (Doc. 85; Doc. 86). No objections have been timely filed to the Report. As such, the Court will ADOPT the Report. (Doc. 84). A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v. Astrue,

(3d Cir. 2011) (quoting

(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”

(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark,

, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984);

(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.”

(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v. Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363,

, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v. Raddatz,

(1980)). For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. Adv. Comm. Note Rule 72(b). The Court agrees with the sound reasoning in the Report and finds no clear error on the face of the record. (Doc. 84). As such, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report (Doc. 84) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the decision of the Court. Lyons’s motion for

summary judgment (Doc. 65) is DENIED, the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 73) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

Dated: September 16, 2025 s/ Karoline Mehalchick KAROLINE MEHALCHICK United States District Judge