IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVNIA

RICHARD ALLEN HAMMONDS, : Civil No.: 4:14-CV-00527

:

Plaintiff, :

v. : (Judge Brann)

:

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et. al, :

:

Defendants. : (Magistrate Judge Schwab)

ORDER

August 30, 2016

On March 20, 2014, Plaintiff, Richard Allen Hammonds, hereinafter 

“Hammonds,” commenced the present action by filing a complaint against thirty

defendants.1 Defendants are current and former employees of the Pennsylvania 

Department of Corrections and medical personnel who provide services at state 

prisons.

2 Hammonds contends, among other things, that officials at the State 

Correctional Institution Frackville poisoned his food with detergent chemicals and 

a “deadly dose... of hepatitis.”3 Hammonds contends that he was subsequently 

denied medical treatment for the symptoms and conditions he incurred as a result.

4

 

1

ECF No. 1.

2

ECF No. 1.

3

ECF No. 103 at 1.

4

ECF No. 103 at 2.

Case 4:14-cv-00527-MWB-SES Document 117 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 4
Before this Court is Hammonds’s September 11, 2015 motion for a 

temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.5 Hammonds asserts that 

the medical symptoms he has incurred as a result of the alleged poisoning require 

immediate gastroenterological intervention; he therefore requests a “temporary 

restraining order requiring the Defendants to arrange for an examination and a plan 

of treatment by a qualified specialist and a preliminary injunction requiring the 

Defendants to carry out that plan of treatment.”6

On September 25, 2015, Commonwealth defendants filed a brief in 

opposition to Hammonds’s motion.7 On October 5, 2015, Hammonds filed a reply 

brief.8 On July 26, 2016, Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab filed a Report and 

Recommendation addressing Hammonds’s motion for a temporary restraining 

order and preliminary injunction.

9 Magistrate Judge Schwab recommended that 

this Court: (1) deny Hammonds’s motion for temporary restraining order and 

preliminary injunction; and (2) remand the case to her for further proceedings.

10

 

5

ECF No. 102.

6

ECF No. 103 at 2.

7

ECF No. 105.

8

ECF No. 106.

9

ECF No. 116.

10 ECF No. 116 at 15.

Case 4:14-cv-00527-MWB-SES Document 117 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 4
When a Report and Recommendation is filed, it is disseminated to the 

parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.11 When 

objections are timely filed, the district court must conduct a de novo review of 

those portions of the report to which objections are made.12 Although the standard 

of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the discretion 

of the district court, which may otherwise rely on the recommendations of the 

magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.13 For portions of the report and 

recommendation to which no objection is made, the court should, as a matter of 

good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in 

order to accept the recommendation.”14 Regardless of whether timely objections 

are made by a party, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.15

No objections to Magistrate Judge Schwab’s Report and Recommendation 

have been filed, and the August 12, 2016 filing deadline has passed. This Court has 

reviewed the Report and Recommendation and is satisfied that there is no clear 

error on its face. As such, I will adopt it in full.

 

11 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)

12 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011)

13 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F. Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 

U.S. 667, 676 (1980)

14 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., 

Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010)(citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d 

Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)

15 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31

Case 4:14-cv-00527-MWB-SES Document 117 Filed 08/30/16 Page 3 of 4
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in full. ECF No. 116.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary 

injunction is DENIED. ECF No. 102.

3. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

/s Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00527-MWB-SES Document 117 Filed 08/30/16 Page 4 of 4