Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180330_0000933.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:14:10+00:00

Document:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Arbuckle (Doc. No. 93), recommending that the Court deny a motion for summary judgment filed by Dr. Deborah Wilson, Registered Nurse Patty Bunting, Health Care Administrator Jackie Gregory, and other medical personnel (the “Medical Defendants”) (Doc. No. 84), to which the Medical Defendants have filed objections (Doc. No. 94). Upon consideration of the briefing filed in connection with the Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation, the Medical Defendants' objections, and the applicable law, for the reasons provided herein, the Court will adopt the recommendation set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and will deny the Medical Defendants' motion for summary judgment, but for reasons different than those offered by Magistrate Judge Arbuckle.
The Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq., and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that any party may file written objections to a magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations. The written objections must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.” L.R. 72.3. When a party objects to a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, this Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); M.D. Pa. L.R. 72.3. The Court may also “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) requires the court to render summary judgment "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “[T]his standard provides that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986) (emphasis in original). A factual dispute is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable law, and is genuine only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable fact finder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248-49. Thus, where no material fact is in dispute, the moving party need only establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 248. Conversely, where there is a dispute as to an issue of material fact, the moving party must establish that the factual dispute is not a genuine one. Id.
The party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of identifying evidence that it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2004). Once the moving party has carried this initial burden, “the nonmoving party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the non-moving party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial, ” summary judgment is warranted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence that the non-moving party must provide, a court should grant summary judgment where the non-movant's evidence is merely colorable, conclusory, or speculative. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50. There must be more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the non-moving party and more than some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. Id. at 252; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).

References: § 636
 § 636
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.