Richard Reader, As Administrator of the Estate of Rhonda Russell v. Blair...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD READER ) As Administrator of the Estate of RHONDA ) RUSSELL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00140 ) Judge Stephanie L. Haines VS. ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly ) BLAIR COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, etal.) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation on multiple motions to dismiss arising out of a Complaint filed by Richard Reader, as administrator of the Estate of Rhonda Russell (“Plaintiff’) (ECF No. 8). For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 138) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

On May 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 103).!

At Count I of the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings a claim based on “Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution” pursuant to Section 1983 against all Defendants. (/d. §§ 193-343). At Count II Plaintiff asserts a claim for assault and battery under Pennsylvania law against Defendant Sergeant Bistline, (id. 344), and at Counts III and IV, he brings state-law Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act claims, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8301, 8301, respectively, against all Defendants. (/d. {| 357-79).

All Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss with Briefs in Support. (ECF Nos. 106, 107, ' This case was reassigned from Senior U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson to U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on April 1, 2025, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 137(a) and LCvR 40(G). (ECF No. 88). The undersigned was assigned as the presiding District Court Judge on December 8, 2025.

110, 112, 114, 117), arguing Plaintiff has failed to state a claim as to the respective claims brought against them, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and some assert they are entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff filed Responses in Opposition to each of these motions. (ECF Nos. 119, 120, 121). All Defendants have filed Reply Briefs, and Plaintiff filed a Sur-reply Brief to the Altoona Defendants’ Reply Brief. (ECF Nos. 122, 123, 125, 131).

On December 19, 2025, Magistrate Judge Kelly filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 138) recommending that: 1) the Blair County Defendants’? Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 106), be granted and that all claims against those Defendants be dismissed with prejudice; 2) the Altoona Defendants’? Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 110), be granted in part and denied in part, specifically recommending it should be denied as to the due process/shocks the conscience claim at Part B of Count I against the Estate of Sergeant Bistline without prejudice to re-raise the issue of qualified immunity at summary judgment after a 90 day discovery period, and further, recommending that all other claims against the Altoona Defendants be dismissed with prejudice; and 3) Deputies James Ott and Larry Hopkins’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 114), be granted and that all claims against those Defendants be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 138 at 48-49). The Parties were advised that they had fourteen days to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C.§ 636 (b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Civil Rule 72.D.2. Objections have been filed. (ECF Nos. 139, 140).

Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review, ‘These include Blair County, Pennsylvania, Warden Abbie Tate, Deputy Warden James Eckard, Deputy Warden Shaun Edmonson, Lieutenant Fogle, Officers Nathanial Port and Zachary Stitt.

3 These include City of Altoona and the Estate of Sergeant George E. Bistline. “t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

Defendants Hopkins and Ott object to the Report and recommendation on the grounds that Magistrate Judge Kelly did not address whether they are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. at 10-1 1). The objection is overruled. The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Kelly did not err in failing to address the qualified immunity defense as to these defendants, given her finding, with which the undersigned agrees, that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Barone v. Allegheny Cnty., No. CV 23-1691, 2025 WL 2371205, at *9 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2025) (Hardy, J.) (citing Stringer, and acknowledging the importance of resolving qualified immunity at the earliest possible stage in litigation but declining to address Defendants’ qualified immunity argument in light of its ruling granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim).

Upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 138), the objections, response to the objections, and the Court’s de novo review of the record in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Altoona Defendants’ objections (ECF No. 139) to Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objections (ECF No. 140) are OVERRULED. The Court has exercised its de novo review and concurs with Magistrate Judge Kelly’s thorough analysis and her legal conclusions. It has independently reached the same legal conclusions for the same reasons expressed in the comprehensive Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby APOPTS Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 138) as its Opinion.

Accordingly, the following order is entered: Plaintiff also mentions this in his objections. (ECF No. 140 at 12, n. 1) ORDER AND NOW, this A) day of February, 2026, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) the Blair County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 106), is GRANTED and all claims against those Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 2) the Altoona Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 110), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, specifically, it is DENIED as to the due process/shocks the conscience claim at Part B of Count I against the Estate of Sergeant Bistline WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-raise the issue of qualified immunity at summary judgment after a 90-day discovery period, and FURTHER, all other claims against the Altoona Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and 3) Deputies Ott and Hopkins’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 114) is GRANTED and that all claims against those Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 138) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; and, This case is returned to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

“gaa Ares Stephanie L. Haines United States District Judge CC: All Counsel of Record via CM-ECF Electronic Notice