Gerald Funk v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GERALD FUNK, ) Plaintiff, VS. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-34 ) Judge Stephanie L. Haines PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, ef al., ) Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before the Court is Defendants Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the “DOC”), Mark Knapp (“Mr. Knapp”), William Baker (“Mr. Baker”), and Paul Smith’s (Mr. Smith”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Gerald Funk’s (“Mr. Funk’) Complaint. (ECF No. 22). Mr. Funk’s Complaint contains a total of ten counts against Defendants. (ECF No. 9 at 43-51). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly (“Magistrate Judge Kelly”) for proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.D.

On March 9, 2026, Magistrate Judge Kelly filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion at ECF No. 22. (ECF No. 42 at 1). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Kelly recommended that the Court: (1) grant Defendants’ Motion as to Mr. Funk’s claims at Count One, Count Two against Mr. Knapp, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Smith (the “Individual Defendants”), and at Count Six, Count Seven, and Count Eight, dismissing those claims with no leave to amend; (2) grant Defendants’ Motion as to Mr. Funk’s claim at Count Nine with leave to amend; and (3) deny Defendants’ Motion as to Mr. Funk’s claims at Count Two against the DOC, and at Count Three, Count Four, Count Five, and Count Ten, (/d. at 7, 36). Magistrate Judge Kelly also advised the parties that they were “permitted to file written objections within fourteen days, or seventeen days for unregistered ECF Users.” (/d. at 36). Finally, she explained that the failure “to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal.” (/d.) (citing Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011)).!

Defendants have not filed timely Objections to the Report and Recommendation, but Mr. Funk has. (ECF No. 45-1). Chamberlain v. Garman, No. 15-CV-5935, 2024 WL 5716561, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 31, 2024) (“Pro se prisoners are entitled to the prisoner mailbox rule, which means a document is deemed filed when it is deposited in the prison mailroom.”).

Upon a “de novo determination of those portions of the [Report and Recommendation] to which [Mr. Funk has objected,]” EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017), (standard of review when timely objections are filed) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and all relevant legal provisions, the Court overrules Mr. Funk’s Objections and finds that Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation is correct in all respects. Therefore, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.D.2, the Court will accept in whole the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Kelly in this matter.

Accordingly, the following order is entered: ORDER AND NOW, this 31“ day of March, 2026, IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 42 and those articulated above, Defendants’ Motion at ECF No. 22 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. | Magistrate Judge Kelly also noted that any “party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days[.]” (ECF No. 42 at 36). Although the Court is ruling on Defendants’ Motion and Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation without affording Defendants fourteen days to respond to Mr. Funk’s Objections, the Court is overruling those Objections. The Court therefore finds that it is appropriate to rule on Defendants’ Motion and Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation at this time.

Specifically, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Mr. Funk’s claims at Count One, Count Two against the Individual Defendants, and at Count Six, Count Seven, and Count Eight. The Court DISMISSES those claims WITH PREJUDICE. Further, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion as to Mr. Funk’s claim at Count Nine. However, the Court will permit Mr. Funk leave to amend relative to that Count. Finally, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion as to Mr. Funk’s claims at Count Two against the DOC, and at Count Three, Count Four, Count Five, and Count Ten. Those claims shall proceed in this matter; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Funk may file an Amended Complaint, which may only articulate his claims at Count Two against the DOC, and at Count Three, Count Four, Count Five, Count Nine (if he sees fit to amend that Count), and Count Ten, on or before April 28, 2026.

In the event Mr. Funk does not file an Amended Complaint by that date, he will be deemed to be standing on his Complaint at ECF No. 9, meaning that the Court will dismiss his claim at Count Nine WITH PREJUDICE.

Vie hy nie Du / Stephanie L. Haines United States District Judge Notice by U.S. Mail to: Plaintiff at his address of record