2014 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-4-2014

Alfonzo Salley v. Martin Dragovich

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 14-3658

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2014 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Alfonzo Salley v. Martin Dragovich" (2014). 2014 Decisions. Paper 1209.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2014/1209
DLD-045 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 14-3658

___________

ALFONZO B. SALLEY,

Appellant

v.

MARTIN DRAGOVICH; MICHAEL CLEAVER; BLAINE E. STEIGERWALT; 

PALOKOVICH, Deputy Superintendent of SCI-Camp Hill; DOCTOR WILLIAM 

YOUNG, SCI-Camp Hill; DOCTOR MARTIN LANSKY, SCI-Camp Hill; 

SHUTHERLAND, Counselor SCI-Camp Hill; JOHN DOE PSYCHILOGIST, SCI-Camp 

Hill; JOHN DOE PSYCHIATRIC, SCI-Camp Hill; SGT. ROSS, SCI-Camp Hill; 

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LEHMAN, SCI-Camp Hill; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

TAYLOR, SCI-Camp Hill; OFFICER JOHN DOE

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 13-cv-02423)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________________________________

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

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

November 25, 2014

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: December 4, 2014)

_________

OPINION*

_________

 

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

constitute binding precedent.
2

PER CURIAM

Alfonzo B. Salley, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from the District 

Court’s order dismissing a motion for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

60(b). For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm. See L.A.R. 27.4; 

I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

In April 2002, Salley filed a counseled amended complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, alleging, among other claims, that he was denied medical attention in violation of 

the Eighth Amendment.1 The parties agreed to proceed before a Magistrate Judge who 

granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants related to Salley’s claim that he 

was denied medical attention and a wheelchair for injuries he had suffered to his head, 

neck, and spine, which left him unable to walk. In his memorandum, the Magistrate 

Judge thoroughly outlined the defendants’ evidence, including reports and testimony 

from numerous medical examinations, showing that Salley was not injured. Salley v. PA 

Dep’t of Corr., No. 99-cv-0606, slip op. at 39-49 (M.D. Pa. April 11, 2003). The 

Magistrate Judge also noted that Salley had failed to offer any evidence to cast doubt on 

the defendants’ medical expert testimony. Id. at 47-48. 

 

1 Salley’s amended complaint raised many claims, including multiple Eighth Amendment 

claims, unrelated to the motion now before us. We will briefly outline the procedural 

history only as it relates to Salley’s current Rule 60(b) motion, limited to the Eighth 

Amendment claim stemming from the denial of medical treatment for injuries to his head, 

neck, and spine. 
3

Following a two-day jury trial on claims not related to Salley’s current motion, the 

Magistrate Judge entered judgment on June 8, 2003. Salley raised numerous claims on

appeal, including a challenge to the grant of summary judgment relating to his claimed

denial of medical attention and a wheelchair. We affirmed, noting that the defendants 

had “presented reports documenting [Salley’s] numerous exams,” while Salley had “not 

produced any medical evidence to counter” the defendants’ evidence. Salley v. PA Dep’t 

of Corr., 181 F. App’x 258, 265 (3d Cir. 2006) (not precedential). 

On September 20, 2013, more than ten years after the Magistrate Judge entered 

final judgment, Salley filed a “Motion for Relief From Judgment and Request For a New 

Trial” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).2 Salley states that on May 1, 

2013, he received medical records from SCI-Houtzdale that support his position 

regarding his medical condition and his inability to walk. In his motion, Salley argues 

that “extraordinary circumstances” prohibited him from “presenting [this] factual medical 

evidence” at trial. Salley claims that this medical evidence would rebut the finding by the 

trial court that Salley had failed to present medical evidence to counter the defendants’

expert medical testimony. Salley further argues that his trial counsel had failed to obtain 

this medical evidence and had abandoned him on appeal. 

 

2 Salley’s motion was docketed as a new complaint, and the case was given a new docket 

number, under which this case now proceeds. In a report and recommendation, the

Magistrate Judge interpreted Salley’s motion as raising a new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. 

However, the District Court reviewed Salley’s filing and concluded that it was a motion
4

The District Court construed Salley’s filing as a motion for relief from final 

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b), and dismissed it as untimely. Salley timely appealed. 

II.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of relief 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), with the exception of claims raised under 

60(b)(4), for abuse of discretion. Budget Blinds, Inc. v. White, 536 F.3d 244, 251 (3d 

Cir. 2008). We may summarily affirm the decision of the District Court if no substantial 

question is presented on appeal. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

III.

We agree with the District Court that Salley’s September 20, 2013 filing is a Rule 

60(b) motion seeking relief from the final judgment issued on June 8, 2003, and not a 

new 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Salley’s argument regarding his newly acquired 

medical records is properly brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), 

which permits a court to relieve a party from final judgment when the party offers “newly 

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in 

time to move for a new trial.” A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(2) 

“must be made...no more than a year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date 

of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Salley filed his motion more than a decade

after final judgment in this matter; his motion is, therefore, untimely.

 

seeking Rule 60(b) relief from the final judgment issued in the matter at Doc No. 99-

00606. 
5

Nor can Salley find relief under Rule 60(b)(6) by claiming that “extraordinary 

circumstances” exist requiring the District Court to consider the medical evidence he now 

offers. We have previously held that Rule 60(b)(6) cannot be used “as a means by which 

the time limitations of 60(b)(1-3) may be circumvented.” Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 

488, 493 (3d Cir. 1975). Moreover, Rule 60(c)(1) requires that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion 

must be filed “within a reasonable time.” Moolenaar v. Gov’t of V.I., 822 F.2d 1342, 

1348 (3d Cir. 1987) (holding that a Rule 60(b)(6) motion filed “almost two years” after 

the final judgment was not within a reasonable time). Salley filed his motion on 

September 20, 2013, more than ten years after the final judgment entered on June 8, 

2003, and, despite referring to “extraordinary circumstances,” fails to offer any 

explanation for this ten year delay. Accordingly, inasmuch as Salley seeks relief 

pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6), the motion was not filed “within a reasonable time.”

Because we find that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 

Rule 60(b) motion, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.