Tavon Thomas Kirkland v. Mr. Disalvo, Corrections Officer 4, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TAVON THOMAS KIRKLAND, ) ) ) No. 2:24-cv-00073 Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville ) Mr. DISALVO, Corrections Officer 4, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER OF COURT Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 101) filed by the Honorable Maureen P. Kelly in the above-captioned matter. Judge Kelly’s December 8, 2025 Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment at ECF No. 64 and grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at ECF No. 76. Objections to the Report and Recommendation for Unregistered ECF Users were due by December 26, 2025. No objections were filed, and the Court considers this matter to be ripe for disposition.

“The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters to determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “This standard requires the District Court to review findings of fact for clear error and to review matters of law de novo.” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (citing Haines v. Liggett Grp. Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 91 (3d Cir. 1992)). A district court may only modify or set aside those parts of the order on non-dispositive matters that it finds to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Id. “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, ‘although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Pennsylvania, Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., No. 2:05-cv-885, 2007 WL 2253554, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2007) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985)). “A magistrate judge’s order is contrary to law ‘when the magistrate judge has misinterpreted or misapplied the applicable law.’” Brandon v. Burkhart, No. 1:16-cv-177, 2020 WL 85494, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 7, 2020) (quoting Doe v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 237 F.R.D. 545, 548 (D.N.J. 2006)).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that “even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)).

Upon reasoned consideration of Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation and Defendant’s Motion, and following review of all relevant docket entries, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: The Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants as to all claims. A separate Rule 58 Judgment Order follows. The Clerk shall mark this case as closed.

BY THE COURT: /s/Robert J. Colville Robert J. Colville United States District Judge DATED: January 12, 2026 cc: All counsel of record Tavon Thomas Kirkland MY6189 SCI SOMERSET 1590 Walters Mill Road Somerset, PA 15510-0001