Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-01511/USCOURTS-ca3-16-01511-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barb Fox
Not Party
Lackawanna County Prison
Appellee
Shawn Michael Ledcke
Appellant
Mavi
Not Party
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Not Party
Sheriff/Officers
Not Party

Document Text:

BLD-290 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 16-1511

___________

SHAWN MICHAEL LEDCKE,

 Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; LACKAWANNA COUNTY 

PRISON; LACKAWANNA COUNTY PRISON BOARD; JANINE M. DONATE, 

Lackawanna County Prison Warden; ROBERT MCMILLIAN, Lackawanna County 

Prison Warden; JOHN SZYMANSKI, Lackawanna County Sheriff; WALTER J. 

PRITCHYK, JR., Lackawanna County Prison Associate Warden Security; TIMOTHY 

BETTI, Lackawanna County Prison Associate Warden; LACKAWANNA COUNTY 

PRISON DISCIPLINARY HEARING GUARD; JOHN OR JANE DOE #1; JOHN OR 

JANE DOE #2; DOCTOR JOHN DOE #3; NURSE BARB FOX; CORRECTIONAL 

SHERIFF/OFFICERS; CAPTAIN (FNV) CHIAPELLI; LIEUTENANT (FNV) 

MCGRAW; LIEUTENANT (FNV) MAVI;SERGEANT (FNV) FANNY; SERGEANT 

CWALINSKI; SERGEANT BILL SHANLEY; SCOTT BLUME; MIKE MALLICK, 

(FNV); TALLUTO, (FNV); (FNV) ROBINSON; SCHNIPES, (FNV)

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 1-12-cv-01580)

District Judge: Honorable Martin C. Carlson

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)

or Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

June 16, 2016

Before: FUENTES, KRAUSE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: July 6, 2016)

_________

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
2

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Pro se appellant Shawn Ledcke appeals from the judgment of the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered following a jury trial in his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. As the appeal does not present a substantial question, we will 

summarily affirm the decision of the District Court.

I.

This § 1983 action arises from an August 9, 2010 physical confrontation between 

Ledcke and various correctional staff at the Lackawanna County Prison, followed by a 

period of detention under what Ledcke describes as harsh conditions without adequate 

medical care. Ledcke alleges that, on August 9, 2010, at approximately 1:00 P.M., 

“C.E.R.T. members noticed [him] outside his assigned cell . . . and immediately rushed 

[him] . . . causing fractured ribs in several locations,” and numerous other injuries. He 

claims that various Defendants – primarily Correctional Officers Blume, Schnipes, 

Robinson, and Talluto – punched, kicked, and pepper sprayed him, and ultimately hogtied him in his cell with a spit hood. He also claims that two medical defendants – Dr. 

Zaloga and Nurse Fox – and two supervisory officials at the prison – Captain Chiarelli 

and Sergeant Shanley – were present during this altercation but failed to intervene. 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
3

Ledcke concedes that, after being released from his restraints, he received medical 

treatment in his cell from Nurse Barb Fox – which he contends was limited to sanitizing 

his wounds and providing an unspecified shot in his arm. He also claims that a John Doe 

doctor Defendant refused his requests to receive x-rays for possible broken bones.1 

Medical records indicate that Ledcke was brought to the medical unit on August 9, 2010 

at 1:30 P.M. and treated by Dr. Zaloga, who prescribed Ativan, Tylenol, and antibiotic 

ointment. Medical records also reflect fifty-seven separate nursing notes documenting 

efforts to treat Ledcke between August 9, 2010 and August 25, 2010, but he declined care 

in the majority of these instances.

Ledcke claims that after receiving treatment on August 9, 2010, he was returned to 

his cell and double-cuffed behind his back with “bleeding wounds, no mattress . . . no 

sink or toilet water, and another prisoner’s feces and urine smeared throughout the cell.” 

Ledcke acknowledges that his restraints were removed about twenty-five hours after the 

initial incident, but claims that his continued requests for medical treatment were denied. 

On August 11, 2010 he was transferred to another cell and was “granted a shower, a 

mattress . . . serviceable bedding and clean clothes.”

The next day, after he requested to be moved to a behavior watch cell, he claims 

that Defendants placed him in a cell that was “clearly smeared and contaminated” with 

various bodily fluids. He remained in this cell for six days and was not permitted to 

 

1

In his deposition, Ledcke acknowledged receiving x-rays at an unspecified time after 

being transferred to SCI-Talladega, and indicated that he had no knowledge of the results.

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
4

shower or otherwise access hygiene products. He was then transferred to another cell 

where he acknowledges receiving wound care and various unspecified medications.

The District Court screened Ledcke’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and 

on September 12, 2012, it dismissed all of his claims predicated on solely verbal 

harassment, in addition to all claims against: (1) the institutional Defendants; (2) the 

supervisory Defendants; (3) nurse Barb Fox; and (4) John Syzmanski.2 On August 26, 

2014, the District Court awarded summary judgment in favor of the remaining 

Defendants on all remaining claims, but permitted Ledcke to proceed to a jury trial on (1) 

his excessive force claims, and (2) his failure to intervene claims against correctional 

supervisors who were allegedly present during the August 9, 2010 physical confrontation.

On February 8, 2016, a jury trial was held before Magistrate Judge Martin 

Carlson, and the jury returned a verdict that same day, finding that none of the remaining 

Defendants used excessive force against Ledcke. Following the District Court’s entry of 

judgment in favor of Defendants, this timely appeal ensued.

II.

 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over 

the District Court’s dismissal under § 1915(e)(2), see Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 

223 (3d Cir. 2000) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard), and ask whether the complaint 

contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is 

 

2 Syzmanski, a sheriff’s deputy, is alleged only to have made a derogatory comment 

toward Ledcke during an interview with FBI agents. 

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
5

plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations 

omitted). We also exercise plenary review over the District Court’s award of summary 

judgment and apply the same test the District Court should have utilized – whether the 

record “shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving 

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d 

Cir. 2009). In applying this test, we must accept evidence presented by the non-movant 

as true and draw all justifiable factual inferences in his favor. Id. We may summarily 

affirm any judgment of the District Court where “it clearly appears that no substantial 

question is presented or that subsequent precedent or a change in circumstances warrants 

such action.” 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6 (2015).

We detect no error in the District Court’s resolution of Ledcke’s claims and will 

affirm for substantially the same reasons as expressed by the District Court. His claims 

of verbal harassment fail as a matter of law. McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287, 1291 n.3 

(10th Cir. 2001) (“[A]cts or omissions resulting in an inmate being subjected to nothing 

more than threats and verbal taunts do not violate the Eighth Amendment.”). The District 

Court also properly dismissed his claims of supervisory liability because he failed to 

demonstrate that any of the supervisory Defendants were actually involved in the alleged 

unconstitutional conduct, or that they “established and maintained a policy, practice or 

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
6

custom which directly caused [the] constitutional harm.” Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 

629 F.3d 121, 129 n.5 (3d Cir. 2010).3 

As to his medical care claims, we agree with the District Court that the record 

“reveals that medical staff attempted to provide ongoing care to Ledcke following this 

incident, but were repeatedly rebuffed by Ledcke who chose for his own reasons to 

frequently refuse the care and treatment offered to him.” Medical records reflect at least 

fifty-seven distinct attempts to treat Ledcke following the initial altercation – the majority 

of which he declined. Thus, his claims amount to “[m]ere disagreement as to the proper 

course of medical treatment,” which is insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. 

Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2004) (citing Monmouth County Correctional 

Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987)); See also Norris v. 

Frame, 585 F.2d 1183, 1186 (3d Cir. 1978) (“Where the plaintiff has received some care, 

inadequacy or impropriety of the care that was given will not support an Eighth 

Amendment claim.”).4

Ledcke’s conditions of confinement claims are premised on (1) an approximate 

24-hour period between August 9, 2010 and August 10, 2010 when he claims he was left 

in a filthy cell with no bedding, double-cuffed in the back, and (2) a 6-day period when 

 

3 We also note that, following the District Court’s dismissal of Ledcke’s supervisory 

liability claims, a jury determined that no unconstitutional force was employed against 

Ledcke. His claims of supervisory liability would also fail on that basis.

4 To the extent that he complains about the delay in receiving x-rays, he has offered no 

“verif[ied] medical evidence . . . to establish the detrimental effect of [the] delay,” as he 

must do to support a delayed treatment claim. Hill v. Dekalb Rg'l Youth Detention Ctr., 

40 F.3d 1176, 1188 (11th Cir. 1994) (overruled on other grounds).

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
7

he claims he was not permitted to shower or access hygiene products in a cell 

contaminated with various bodily fluids. Upon a review of videos depicting these 

conditions, the District Court determined them to be “spare [but] in no way shocking or 

depriv[ing] Ledcke of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” We agree. 

See Johnson v. Pelker, 891 F.2d 136, 138-39 (7th Cir. 1989) (no Eighth Amendment 

violation where prisoner slept on a “slab of metal” for two and one-half days); Howard v. 

Adkison, 887 F.2d 134, 137 (8th Cir. 1989) (deprivation of hygiene products implicates 

the Eighth Amendment only “over a lengthy course of time”). After our independent 

review of the available video evidence depicting Ledcke’s living conditions between 

August 9, 2010 and August 18, 2010, we conclude that no evidence exists to support his 

claims that he was handcuffed in the back for any extended period of time, or that he was 

placed in any cells containing potentially hazardous substances. 

Turning to his excessive force and failure to intervene claims, the jury determined 

that none of the Defendants involved in the initial altercation “violated his rights under 

the Eighth Amendment by using force against him maliciously, for the purpose of 

causing harm.”5 Because no unconstitutional force was employed against Ledcke, no 

liability can exist for failing to intervene in its application. See Smith v. Mensinger, 293 

 

5

In his argument in support of appeal, Ledcke contends that this finding was “contrary to 

the evidence.” But because he has filed no post-verdict motions, and appeals directly 

from the judgment entered according to the jury’s verdict, our ability to review the 

sufficiency of the evidence is curtailed, and our actions are limited to affirmance or 

remand for a new trial upon showing of prejudicial legal error. See Unitherm Food Sys. 

v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 400-01 (2006). He has alleged no such error.

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/06/2016
8

F.3d 641, 650 (3d Cir. 2002) (duty to intervene extends only to “constitutional violation 

such as an unprovoked beating”).

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Case: 16-1511 Document: 003112345315 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/06/2016