Deonta Marcus Mobley v. Butler County, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DEONTA MARCUS MOBLEY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-107 v. Hon. William S. Stickman IV BUTLER COUNTY, et al, Defendants.

ORDER OF COURT Deonta Marcus Mobley (“Plaintiff”) brought this pro se prisoner civil rights action against various entities and individuals after he was arrested and held in the Butler County Prison (“BCP”). (ECF Nos. 4, 37, and 52). Defendants filed the following motions: (1) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Supplement Filed on Behalf of Defendants the Honorable William C. Robinson, Jr., the Honorable William Shaffer, the Honorable Kelley T.D.

Streib, and the Honorable Timothy F. McCune (collectively, “Judicial Defendants”) (ECF No. 55); (2) Defendants Butler County, Lisa Lotz, Leslie Osche, Beau Sneddon, Michael Slupe, Jordan Popinski, Adam Pry, Brian Tracey, Douglas Ritson, Richard Goldinger, and Timothy Fennell’s (collectively, “County Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Supplement (ECF No. 58); and (3) Motion of PrimeCare Medical, Inc. (“PrimeCare”) to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 75). Magistrate Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the motion to dismiss filed by Judicial Defendants be granted and all claims be dismissed with prejudice, and that the motion to dismiss filed by PrimeCare be granted and the claims against them be dismissed without prejudice. As to the motion to dismiss filed by County Defendants, she recommended that it be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, she recommended that the motion be granted as to Counts I, II and V against all County Defendants and the claims against them be dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the event that Plaintiff's underlying convictions are later invalidated. Next, Magistrate Judge Taylor recommended that the motion be granted as to Counts HI and IV against Defendants Beau Sneddon and Brian Tracy, and the claims against them be dismissed with prejudice. Further, she recommended that the motion be denied as to the claims against Defendants Adam Pry and Jordan Popinski at Counts III and IV. (ECF No. 83).

The parties were given the opportunity to file objections to Magistrate Judge Taylor’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration which included objections (ECF No. 84), and Supplemental Objections (ECF No. 87). PrimeCare and Judicial Defendants filed responses to Plaintiff's motion and objections, urging the Court to accept Magistrate Judge Taylor’s recommendation as to the disposition of the claims against them. (ECF Nos. 88 and 89).

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. /d. Following de novo review, “[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).

Upon review of Magistrate Judge Taylor’s Report and Recommendation, the objections filed thereto, and the Court’s de novo review of the record in this matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's reconsideration motion (ECF No. 84) is DENIED and his objections (ECF Nos. 84 and 87) are OVERRULED. The Court concurs with Magistrate Judge Taylor’s thorough analysis and her legal conclusions. It has independently reached the same legal conclusions for the same reasons expressed in the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Court hereby APOPTS Magistrate Judge Taylor’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 83) as its Opinion.

AND NOW, this zo day of March 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judicial Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 55) is GRANTED. All claims against Judicial Defendants are dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that County Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 58) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is granted as to Counts I, II and V. All County Defendants are dismissed without prejudice to refiling in the event that Plaintiffs underlying convictions are later invalidated. The motion is granted as to Counts II and IV against Defendants Beau Sneddon and Brian Tracy and the claims against them are dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile. The motion is denied as to the claims against Defendants Adam Pry and Jordan Popinski at Counts III and IV.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PrimeCare’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 75) is GRANTED, and all claims against it are dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 on or before May 18, 2026, and it must (1) ' See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (d Cir. 1997) (a court may decide to deny leave to amend for reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, prejudice, and futility). An amendment is futile if it merely restates the same facts as the original complaint in different terms, reasserts a claim on which the court previously ruled, fails to state a legal theory, or could not withstand a motion to dismiss.” 3 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.15 (3d ed. 2024). be a pleading that stands by itself without reference to other filings in this case and (2) not re- allege claims that have been dismissed with prejudice.

BY THE COURT: [{ DIA 6 Sea WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE