Quintez Talley v. PA Department of Corrections

NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 20-1278 __________ QUINTEZ TALLEY, Appellant v. PA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS; JOHN E. WETZEL; TAMMY FERGUSON; BOBBY JO SALAMON; TIMOTHY GRAHAM; B. ANSTEAD; SCOTT ELLENBERGER; DAVE LINK; LT. SHAW; SGT. RYDER; C.O. BALKO; JERROLD LINCOLN; CHIEF, SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION; TAMMY S. FAGAN; BUREAU OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES; DORINA VARNER; C.O. SAYLOR ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-02074) District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 20, 2024 Before: SHWARTZ, RESTREPO, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: July 2, 2024) ___________ OPINION * PER CURIAM Pennsylvania state prisoner Quintez Talley, who is a frequent filer in the federal courts, 1 appeals from the District Court’s entry of summary judgment against him in this civil rights action that he brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm that judgment.

I.

In April 2018, Talley filed an amended civil rights complaint in the District Court against a host of defendants (hereinafter “Appellees”). Only nine days after a subset of Appellees answered the amended complaint, the District Court received from Talley a motion for summary judgment. That subset of Appellees later requested two extensions of the deadline to respond to Talley’s motion. A United States Magistrate Judge granted those extension requests in July 2018 and January 2019, respectively. In the latter decision, the Magistrate Judge also struck Talley’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice to his ability to refile it after the close of discovery. Talley objected to the January 2019 decision. In February 2019, the District Court construed that decision as a report and recommendation (in an abundance of caution), adopted it, and denied Talley’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice to his ability to refile it later.

In July 2019, all Appellees moved for summary judgment. Although the Magistrate Judge twice ordered Talley to respond to those motions, he did not do so. Nor did he refile his own summary-judgment motion. On December 30, 2019, the Magistrate Judge (1) recommended that the District Court grant Appellees’ summary-judgment motions on their merits, and (2) notified Talley that he had 14 days to object to that recommendation. Talley did not file objections. On January 17, 2020, the District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees, and directed the District Court Clerk to close the case. This timely appeal followed. 2 II.

Talley’s appellate briefing is not a model of clarity. 3 Liberally construed, it challenges the extensions granted to Appellees, the without-prejudice denial of Talley’s motion for summary judgment, and the District Court’s dispositive decision granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees. As explained below, none of these challenges entitles Talley to relief here.

The District Court’s denial of Talley’s motion for summary judgment explicitly afforded him the opportunity to refile that motion. But he did not take advantage of that opportunity. On appeal, he is not arguing that he was prevented from doing so, nor is he asking us to remand so that he can refile it now. Instead, he repeatedly asks us to remand for a trial— relief that would not flow from a successful challenge to (a) the without- prejudice denial of his summary-judgment motion, or (b) the grant of Appellees’ related extension requests. 4 Accordingly, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that the District Court or the Magistrate Judge committed some error in denying Talley’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice or granting Appellees’ two extension requests, there would be no reason for us to vacate the District Court’s judgment. See generally Leyse v. Bank of Am. Nat’l Ass’n, 804 F.3d 316, 321 (3d Cir. 2015) (“When considering an appeal, we must give judgment ‘without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’” (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2111)). 5 As for Talley’s challenge to the District Court’s January 17, 2020 decision granting Appellees’ motions for summary judgment, he has forfeited that challenge by not opposing those motions in the District Court. See P.R.B.A. Corp. v. HMS Host Toll Roads, Inc., 808 F.3d 221, 224 n.1 (3d Cir. 2015) (“It is a well-settled rule that a party opposing a summary judgment motion must inform the trial judge of the reasons, legal or factual, why summary judgment should not be entered. If [he] does not do so, and loses the motion, [he] cannot raise such reasons on appeal.” (quoting Liberles v. Cook County, 709 F.2d 1122, 1126 (7th Cir. 1983))).

In view of the above, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. 6