NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 14

- 4423

___________ RICHARD REICHART , Appellant

v. JOHN WETZEL, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Correctio ns; STEVEN GLUNT, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; DAVID J. C LOSE , Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Warden of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; KENNETH H OLLIBAUGH, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Deputy Warden of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; MR. BOONE, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Maintenance Supervisor of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, in their Individual and Official Capacity as Health Care Provider of Corrections; DR. MUHAMMAD GHASSAN NAJI, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Medical Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Correctio ns

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 3

- 14

- cv
- 00021 ) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

____________________________________ Submitted U nder Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on Tuesday, December 6, 2016
Before: FISHER , KRAUSE , and MELLOY , ∗ Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 27, 2016 )

∗ The Hono rable Michael J. Melloy , Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit , sitting by designation.2 OPINION * *

KRAUSE , Circuit Judge

. Richard Reichart , an inmate at the State Correctional Institution in Houtzdale, Pennsylvania, appeal s two o rders of the District Court d ismissing his amended complaint and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we
will vacate and remand

. 1 On January 30, 2014, p roceeding pro se a nd in forma pauperis , Reichart filed a civil rights action against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and various DOC employees and affiliated medical providers , alleging D efendants provided negligent and
reckless medical care after Reichart injure d his foot by stepping into a hole in a prison
walk way
. Screening Reichart’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A , a Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal without prejudice to proceeding in state court and afforded
Reichart fo urteen days to file an am ended pleading stating a federal claim.
Reichart timely amended his complaint , asserting Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment claims arising out of D efendants’ failure to maintain safe premises and

* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

1 Cou nsel for Reichart is appearing pro bono

. We express our gratitude to counsel for accepting this matter pro bono and for the quality of his representation. Lawyers who act pro bono fulfill the highest service that members of the bar can offer to indigent parties and to the legal profession.3 to provide necessary and appropriate medical treatment for i njuries to his foot. On March 4, 2014, t he District Court adopted the Magistrate J udge’s Report and Recommendation
and dis missed the amended complaint b y summary order, finding Reichart failed to state

a federal claim and disallowing further leave to amen d.
Within one week , Reichart moved to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) , and t he Magistrate Judge recommended denial . Reichart objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and filed a second
amende d complaint comprising new claims against D efendants. On October 17 , 2014,

t he District Court summarily denied the motion without acknowledging Reichart’s second amended complaint , and this appeal followed. Reichart challenges both orders of
the District Court. 2 We apply plenary review to a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a complaint
for failure to state a claim under the Prison Litigation Reform Act , Allah v. Seiverling , 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000) , and we review denial of a motion pursua nt to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) for abuse of discretion , Burtch v. Milberg Facto rs, Inc. , 662 F.3d 212, 220 (3d Cir. 2011)

. As a general rule, d istrict courts are required to offer
amendment in civil rights cases , particularly to pro se plain t i f fs , unless doing so would be “inequitable or futile

. ” Fletcher

- Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc. , 482 F.3d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 2007)

. We have advised that “[t]he refusal to grant leave without any justification for the denial can be an abus e of discretion.” Cureton v. Nat’l

2 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.4 Collegiate Athletic Ass’n , 252 F.3d 267, 276 (3d Cir. 2001) ; see Lake v. Arnold , 232 F.3d 360, 373 (3d Cir. 2000)

. Further , it is axiomatic that pro se pleadings must be construed liberally

. Higgs v. Att’y Gen. , 655 F. 3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011)

. Here, the District Court’s abuse of discretion is manifest

. Its orders , both of which dispose of an intervening pleading filed by Reichart following the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, offer no substantive analysi s for our review. The first
order

— dismissing the case in toto

— addresses Reich art’s amended complaint in a cursory

manner, adopts wholesale the Report and Recommendation that preceded its filing , and
pros cribes further pleading without explanation . The se cond order

— denying Reichart’s Rule 59(e) motion

— fails to acknowledge the presence of Reichart’s second amended complaint and provides no reason s for the decision to deny

. Thus, t he District Court’s

scant analysis forecloses us from conducting meaningful r eview and deprives Reichart of
the fair process due all litigants

. We also note that Reichart’s filings were timely and appear to be made in good
faith. H is amended complaint met the fourteen

- day deadline established by the first Report and Recommendation , and his motion to alter or amend was submitted within one
week of the District Court order dismissing his case. Moreover, each new iteration of his complaint carefully supplements his allegations in an attempt to state a federal claim. In
sum, t h e perf unctory screening Reichart received constitutes an abuse of discretion, and

we are compelled to vacate and remand with instructions to the District Court to consider
and to provide a reasoned analysis of Reichart’ s proposed amended pleadings.