Frederick John Davis v. Kenneth Hollibaugh, Superintendent at Somerset SCT et...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA FREDERICK JOHN DAVIS, ) Plaintiff, VS. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-164 ) Judge Stephanie L. Haines KENNETH HOLLIBAUGH, Superintendent ) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge at Somerset SCT et al., ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before the Court is a Complaint in Civil Action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed pro se by Frederick John Davis (“Plaintiff”) (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff asserts that while he was incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset (““SCI-Somerset”) his civil rights were violated when he suffered various injustices at the hands of SCI-Somerset employees including false misconducts, stolen property, and attempted murder. He alleges conspiracy, retaliation, violation of Equal Protection, and excessive force under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Close, Hollibaugh, Knepper, Moore, and Wingard’s (“Corrections Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) Plaintiffs Complaint.! Corrections Defendants also filed a supporting Brief (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 51) The fully briefed Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge for proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S. C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.D.

On May 13, 2026, Magistrate Judge Dodge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) recommending that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) be granted in part and denied in part.

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. No objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired.

Upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) under the applicable “reasoned consideration” standard, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard of review when no timely and specific objections are filed), and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.D.2, the Court will accept in whole the findings and recommendations of Magistrate Judge Dodge in this matter. Dispensing with unnecessary repetition of the various allegations against the numerous defendants and repetition of the supportive law provided in the Report and Recommendation, this Court finds that Judge Dodge correctly determined that the following claims shall proceed in litigation: (1) Plaintiff's claim of excessive force against Defendants Moore, Wingard, and John Does 1-6; and, (2) Plaintiffs claim for a permanent injunction compelling Hollibaugh and Wingard to return Plaintiffs property. ECF No. 58, p. 19.

Magistrate Judge Dodge also correctly found that Plaintiff's claims of civil conspiracy, retaliation, and equal protection should be dismissed without prejudice. ECF No. 58, p. 18-19. Plaintiff will □ be provided an opportunity to amend his Complaint should he so choose. As to all other claims made in Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 12), they will be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, the following order is entered: ORDER AND NOW, this 8" day of June, 2026, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 38) hereby is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dodge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 58) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims as to Defendants in their official capacities; Plaintiff's claims for equitable relief, except as to the return of property; Plaintiff's criminal conspiracy claims; and all claims under the Pennsylvania Constitution are DISMISSED with prejudice; and □ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all civil conspiracy, retaliation, equal protection claims, or claims against Doe Defendants 7-100 are DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an □ amended complaint on or before July 7, 2026, curing the deficiencies of these claims. The amended complaint shall be a stand-alone document that replaces the original complaint. All claims must be included in the amended complaint or the Court may consider any claims not included as abandoned by Plaintiff.

This case shall proceed as to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Moore, Wingard, and John Does 1-6 for excessive force and Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief compelling Hollibaugh and Wingard to return Plaintiff's property.

This case is returned to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

NN if A fg □□ PN aes FT / Stephanie L. Haines United States District Judge Frederick John Davis GY4837 SCI Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 Institution Drive Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000