IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BRAY JIBRIL MURRAY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) C.A. No. 08-264 Erie

)

PAUL A. ENNIS, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

AMENDED MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint was received by the Clerk of Court on 

September 22, 2008 was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise

Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation [38], filed on November 30,

2009, recommends that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint [31]

be granted in part and denied in part. The parties were allowed ten (10) days from the

date of service to file objections. On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed his objections to

the Report and Recommendation [42] and a supporting declaration [43].

After de novo review of the Complaint and the documents in the case, together

with the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiff’s objections thereto as well as his

declaration, the Court concludes that it will adopt the Report and Recommendation in

part. Specifically, the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation insofar

as it relates to the Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim based on his placement

in administrative custody, as the Court finds that there are material issues of fact

relative to motivation which render summary judgment inappropriate as to that claim. 

However, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in all other respects. 

Accordingly, the following order is entered: 

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00264-SJM Document 59 Filed 07/08/10 Page 1 of 3
AND NOW, to wit, this 8 day of July, 2010, th

IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended

Complaint [31] be, and hereby is, GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

1. Defendants Hays, Morley, and Marzulla are hereby DISMISSED from this

case, due to Plaintiff’s lack of intent to include them as Defendants;

2. Defendants Marks, Varner, Sharon M. Dombrowski, Toski, Grunland, and

Overmyer are hereby DISMISSED from this case, due to their lack of

personal involvement in any of the challenged actions;

3. As to the remaining Defendants, the motion to dismiss [31] is GRANTED

with respect to:

(a) Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against Defendants Gill and

Nicholson premised on his alleged denial of access to the courts;

(b) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim regarding his placement in

administrative custody;

(c) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Defendant Woodard

premised on the rejection of his non-legal correspondence; and 

(d) Plaintiff’s equal protection claim against Defendants Gill, Nicholson,

Ireland, and Banta premised on the alleged denial of access to the

law library.

Inasmuch as the Magistrate Judge converted said motion to a Rule

56 motion for summary judgment, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor

of the relevant Defendants and against Plaintiff Bray Jibril Murray with

respect to the foregoing claims.

4. As to the remaining Defendants, the motion to dismiss [31] is DENIED

with respect to:

(a) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants

Ennis, Wojcik, Reed, Bill C. Dombrowski, Bensel, Nevling, Repko,

Barone, and Ford relative to his placement in administrative

custody;

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00264-SJM Document 59 Filed 07/08/10 Page 2 of 3
(b) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant

Woodard relative to the rejection of Plaintiff’s non-legal

correspondence;

(c) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants

Gill, Nicholson, Ireland, and Banta relative to Plaintiff’s alleged

denial of access to the law library; and

(d) Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants

Ireland, Gill and Banta relative to the alleged false misconduct

issued by Defendant Ireland.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter dated November

30, 2009 [38] is adopted, in part, as the opinion of this Court to the extent set forth

herein.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin 

SEAN J. McLAUGHLIN

United States District Judge

cm: all parties of record.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:08-cv-00264-SJM Document 59 Filed 07/08/10 Page 3 of 3