1

 We will refer to the following defendants as the “Corrections Defendants,” as did the

Magistrate Judge in his report: Jeffrey A. Beard, Donald Kelchner, Robert Marsh, Jr., Blaine

Steigerwalt, Richard Southers, K.D. Kyler, Frederick Wawrose, J. L. Grace, A.S. Williamson,

and R.M. Lawler.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRIAN N. BAKER, : No. 4:CV-05-281

:

Plaintiff : (Judge Jones)

:

v. : (Magistrate Judge Smyser)

:

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

August 15, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

The plaintiff, Brian N. Baker (“Plaintiff” or “Baker”), a prisoner proceeding

pro se, commenced this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“§ 1983") action by filing a complaint

in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on

February 8, 2005. (See Rec. Doc. 1). The case was referred to Magistrate Judge J.

Andrew Smyser for preliminary review. 

On April 29, 2005, the Corrections Defendants1

 filed a Motion to Dismiss

the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (“the Motion”), which has been

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 65 Filed 08/15/05 Page 1 of 5
2

briefed by the parties. On July 19, 2005, Magistrate Judge Smyser issued a report

recommending that the Corrections Defendants’ Motion be denied and that the

case be remanded for further proceedings. (See Rep. & Rec. at 13-14). 

Objections to the report were due on August 5, 2005 and to date none have

been filed.

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 (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. 

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept the veracity of a

plaintiff's allegations. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); see also

White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 106 (3d Cir. 1990). In Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d

63, 65 (3d Cir. 1996), our Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit added that in

considering a motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim argument, a

court should "not inquire whether the plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, only

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 65 Filed 08/15/05 Page 2 of 5
3

whether they are entitled to offer evidence to support their claims." Furthermore,

"a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears

beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim

which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957);

see also District Council 47 v. Bradley, 795 F.2d3 310 (3d Cir. 1986). 

DISCUSSION:

Our review of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations and

although we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them, we will

briefly reiterate the salient aspects of the Magistrate Judge’s report and

recommendation. 

First, as the Magistrate Judge submitted, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) requires that

the complaint include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing theat the

pleader is entitled to relief,” and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has instructed

that a “plaintiff generally need not explicitly allege the existence of every element

in a cause of action if fair notice of the transaction is given and the complaint sets

forth the material points necessary to sustain recovery.” Menkowitz v. Pottstown

Mem’l Med. Ctr., 154 F.3d 113, 124 (3d Cir. 1998). The statement required by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) must give the defendant fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 65 Filed 08/15/05 Page 3 of 5
4

U.S. 506, 512 (2002); see also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). We are

in agreement with the Magistrate Judge’s determination that Plaintiff’s complaint

satisfies the standards of notice pleading pursuant to the Federal Rules and that

Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Corrections Defendants were personally

involved in the events underlying the claims asserted, as elaborated upon by the

Magistrate Judge. (See Rep. & Rec. at 9-10). Second, we agree with the

Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff has stated an Eighth Amendment claim as he has

alleged that all of the named defendants are sued for being deliberately indifferent

to his serious mental health needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Rec. Doc. 1 at 2, ¶ 1; Rep. & Rec. at 10. 

Because we find no error in Magistrate Judge Smyser’s report and

recommendation and, because no objections have been filed, we will adopt the

report as our own.

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 65 Filed 08/15/05 Page 4 of 5
5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Magistrate Judge Smyer’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 52) is

adopted in its entirety. 

2. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the Corrections Defendants is

DENIED.

3. The case and any pending motions filed in the case sub judice are

remanded to Magistrate Judge Smyser for further proceedings.

s/ John E. Jones III

 John E. Jones III

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 65 Filed 08/15/05 Page 5 of 5