1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KEITH E. FLEEGLE, : No. 4:CV-05-1755

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Blewitt)

:

LYCOMING COUNTY PRISON :

MEDICAL DOCTOR, ET AL., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

November 8, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

The plaintiff, Keith E. Fleegle (“Plaintiff” or “Fleegle”), an inmate

incarcerated at the Lycoming County Prison in Williamsport, Pennsylvania

(“LCP”), proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 (“§ 1983") by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania on August 29, 2005. (See Rec. Doc. 1). As per a

September 2, 2005 Order, Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt directed Plaintiff

to file an amended complaint regarding his Eighth Amendment denial of proper

medical care claim based upon deficiencies contained in his original complaint. 

(Rec. Doc. 6). On September 30, 2005, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 

Case 4:05-cv-01755-JEJ Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 Page 1 of 4
2

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Blewitt for preliminary review. 

On October 6, 2005, Magistrate Judge Blewitt issued a report and recommendation

within which he concluded that this case should be dismissed as Plaintiff has failed

to state a cognizable claim under the Eighth Amendment against any Defendant. 

(See Rep. & Rec. at 12). 

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report were due by October 24, 2005

and to date none have been filed. This matter is now ripe for disposition. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When no objections are made to a magistrate’s report, the district court is

not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge’s report before accepting it. 

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). According to the Third Circuit,

however, “the better practice is to afford some level of review to dispositive legal

issues raised by the report.” Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.

1987). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge’s report, the report

becomes the judgment of the court. Id. 

DISCUSSION:

Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determinations

and well-reasoned analysis, and while we have not been presented with any reason

to revisit them, we do reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s report. 

Case 4:05-cv-01755-JEJ Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 Page 2 of 4
3

In his amended complaint, Plaintiff names two Defendants, a medical doctor

alleged to be an employee of LCP, Dr. Keenan, and the LCP. (Rep. & Rec. at 5). 

First, we are in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that the LCP is not a proper

party Defendant in this action as it is well-settled that a prison is not a person

within the meaning of § 1983. See Fischer v. Cahill, 474 F.2d 991, 992 (3d Cir.

1973); see also Mitchell v. Chester County Farms Prison, 426 F. Supp. 271, 274

(E.D. Pa. 1976). Accordingly, all claims asserted against LCP are subject to

dismissal. 

Second, as Magistrate Judge Blewitt explained in his report, in order to state

an Eighth Amendment claim, a prisoner must demonstrate that the Defendant was

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Rep. & Rec. at 8; see Estelle

v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). We agree with the Magistrate Judge that

Plaintiff does not allege deliberate indifference to a serious medical need by any

specific prison employee, including Dr. Keenan. Plaintiff fails to allege that a

named Defendant violated the Eighth Amendment by not providing needed

medical care for his Hepatitis C condition. Instead, Plaintiff only asserts that Dr.

Keenan told him that the prison will not treat him for Hepatitis C. 

Finally, we are in agreement with the Magistrate Judge that the proper

course of action is to dismiss Plaintiff’s case on the basis of his failure to establish

Case 4:05-cv-01755-JEJ Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 Page 3 of 4
4

the existence of actions by a named Defendant which have resulted in

constitutional deprivations. Any further amendment to Plaintiff’s pleading would

prove to be futile under the circumstances. Rep. & Rec. at 11, n. 10; see also

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1982). 

Our review of this case confirms Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s determinations

and we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them. Because we find

no error in Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s report and recommendation and because no

objections have been filed, we will adopt it as our own. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 10) is

adopted in its entirety. 

2. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

3. The Clerk shall close the file on this case. 

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-01755-JEJ Document 11 Filed 11/08/05 Page 4 of 4