IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTWAN McCARREL ) Plaintiff, V. ) Civil Action No. 24-1358 SERGEANT HUNTER SARVER, et. al., Defendants. □

MEMORANDUM ORDER This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act,

(b)(1), and Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. On November 3, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 56, recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants, be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were informed that objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by November 17, 2025 for electronically registered users and by November 20, 2025 for the non-registered user Plaintiff. See

(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local Rule of Court 72.D.2. Plaintiff timely filed Objections. The filing of timely objections requires the district judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report .. . to which objection is made.”

(b)(1); Sample v. Diecks,

, 1106 n. 3 3d Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Following a de novo review of the relevant pleadings and documents in this case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and Objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Mr. McCarrel’s first Objection is a request for clarity as to the Conclusion of the Report and Recommendation. Specifically, he seeks an explanation as to why there was no mention of his request for punitive damages. The Magistrate Judge acknowledged that Mr. McCarrel is seeking punitive damages. On page 3 of the Report, she states: “Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, along with compensatory and punitive damages.” ECF No. 56, at 3. There is no mention of punitive damages in the Conclusion to the Report because there was no ruling as to Mr. McCarrel’s request for punitive damages. Thus, at this time, the punitive damages claim for relief remains in the case and the Objection is dismissed as moot. Next, Mr. McCarrel Objects to the Recommendation dismissing claims against Allegheny County and Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections (more accurately named, the Allegheny County Jail). He notes that several Defendants in this case are employees of said entities and are able to violate rights under the guise of placing blame on their employers directing them to take such action. He also notes that his injuries occurred while in the custody of both entities. Neither Allegheny County or the Allegheny County Jail (identified by Plaintiff as the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections) are named as Defendants in this action. There being no ruling as to these entities, the Objection is dismissed as moot. Finally, Mr. McCarrel Objects to the inclusion of a Eleventh Amendment claim in the Report and its subsequent dismissal. Mr. McCarrel asserts that he has not alleged an Eleventh Amendment claim. However, the Magistrate Judge only referred to the Eleventh Amendment in stating a point of law: that the Eleventh Amendment does not preclude a plaintiff from requesting prospective injunctive relief. The Court sees no error with that statement. There being no Eleventh Amendment claim attributed to Plaintiff in the Report, the Objection is dismissed as moot.

After de novo review of the pleadings and the documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and the Objections thereto, the following order is entered: AND NOW, this 10th day of December 2025, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 56, filed on November 3, 2025, by Magistrate Judge Taylor, is adopted as the Opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 36, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows: A. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim, his Fifth Amendment claim, and Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Said claims are hereby dismissed. Leave to amend is not granted as such would be futile. B. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. Said claims for relief are dismissed. Leave to amend the claims for relief is not granted as such would be futile. C. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claims. D. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss seeking a ruling that qualified immunity applies is denied without prejudice to reassert qualified immunity at a later stage of the proceedings.

This matter is returned to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. s/Marilyn J_ Horan Marilyn J. Horan United States District Court Judge

ANTWAN MCCARREL No. 179460 ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL 950 Second Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219