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

January 3, 2006

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 October 21, 2005, we adopted Magistrate Judge Smyser’s Report and

Recommendation in which we denied as moot Defendant Newton’s Motion to

Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (doc. 25) and granted Defendant Newton’s

redacted Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 54). We then remanded the case

sub judice to the Magistrate Judge. 

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 85 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 5
2

Currently pending before the Court are objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

September 13, 2005 Report and Recommendation filed by Plaintiff on October 24,

2005 but signed by him and dated September 25, 2005. (Rec. Doc. 80). With his

objections, Plaintiff filed two other documents with the Court on October 24, 2005,

but which he also signed and dated September 25, 2005. Plaintiff filed a letter and

a “Statement of Material Facts in Dispute Opposing Defendant Andrew O.

Newton’s Redacted Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of his

Motion for Summary Judgment, Local Rule 56.2.” (Rec. Docs. 81, 79). Finally,

Defendant Newton filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s objections. 

For the reasons that follow, we will reaffirm our prior ruling adopting the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

DISCUSSION:

As a pro se prisoner, Plaintiff is entitled to the prisoner mailbox rule which

means a document is deemed filed when it is deposited in the prison mailbox. See

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988); United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d

282, 289 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Flanagan, 999 F.2d 753, 759 (3d Cir. 1993))

(“[T]he prison mailbox is essentially ‘an adjunct of the clerk’s office,’ and a

jurisdictionally sensitive document is deemed filed on deposit.”); see also Burns v.

Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding pro se prisoner’s habeas

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 85 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 5
3

petition is deemed filed at the moment he delivers it to prison officials for mailing

to the district court). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are deemed filed on

September 25, 2005. As this is within the deadline for such a filing, we will

therefore consider Plaintiff’s objections in this narrative. 

We note that when objections are filed to a report of a magistrate judge, we

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge to which there are

objections. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); see also 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.3. Furthermore, district judges have wide discretion as

to how they treat recommendations of a magistrate judge. See id. Indeed, in

providing for a de novo review determination rather than a de novo hearing,

Congress intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of

sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and

recommendations. See id., see also Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976);

Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).

After a careful review of Plaintiff’s objections, we find that they are merely

a rehashing of arguments previously asserted by Plaintiff and considered by the

Magistrate Judge in his September 13, 2005 Report and subsequently by this Court

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 85 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 5
1

 Plaintiff filed a “Statement of Material Facts in Dispute Opposing Defendant Andrew

O. Newton’s Redacted Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of his Motion for

Summary Judgment, Local Rule 56.2” with the Court on October 24, 2005 and asserts that they

be considered by the Court. As we explained in our October 21, 2005 Order, Plaintiff’s failure

to file a response to Defendant Newton’s Redacted Statement of Undisputed Facts dictates that

the material facts set forth in Defendant Newton’s Redacted Statement of Undisputed Facts be

deemed admitted for purposes of Defendant Newton’s Redacted Motion for Summary Judgment

pursuant to Local Rule 56.1. (Rec. Doc. 78 at 6-7, n.1). Plaintiff’s response to Defendant

Newton’s Redacted Statement of Undisputed Facts is untimely and will accordingly not be

considered by the Court. 

4

in our October 21, 2005 Order.1 As we explained in our October 21, 2005 Order,

the undisputed facts support Defendant Newton’s contention that he exercised his

professional judgment in reviewing Plaintiff’s chart, in clearing Plaintiff for

placement in the SMU, and in weaning Plaintiff off the medication Ativan. (Rec.

Doc. 78 at 6). We additionally concurred with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff

failed to present any evidence that would support an inference that Defendant

Newton acted with deliberate indifference to a serious medical need of Plaintiff

and that Defendant Newton was involved in a conspiracy to place Plaintiff in the

SMU in retaliation for filing grievances or complaints. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff’s

objections, which consist of three numbered paragraphs that address the Magistrate

Judge’s September 13, 2005 Report, fail to set forth any basis for the Court to alter

our October 21, 2005 Order. Plaintiff’s objections do not warrant further

discussion in light of the review we already afforded this case in issuing our prior

Order. 

Case 4:05-cv-00281-JEJ Document 85 Filed 01/03/06 Page 4 of 5
5

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Having considered Plaintiff’s objections, we again adopt Magistrate

Judge Smyser’s Report and Recommendation (doc. 73) for the reasons

set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, this Court’s October 21,

2005 Order, and the instant Memorandum and Order.

2. Defendant Newton’s Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment

(doc. 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.

3. Defendant Newton’s Redacted Motion to Dismiss or for Summary

Judgment (doc. 54) is granted in part and denied in part to the

following extent:

i. Defendant Newton’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

ii. Defendant Newton’s Motion for Summary Judgment is

GRANTED.

4. 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 85 Filed 01/03/06 Page 5 of 5