Anthony B. Harrell v. Laurel Harry, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania grants Plaintiff Anthony B. Harrell’s Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration after determining that his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation were timely mailed. The court vacates its prior memorandum order, adopts the report and recommendation as modified, dismisses certain claims with prejudice, and permits amendment of specified federal, Eighth Amendment, and negligence claims. The order also reinstates certain state-law claims pending a timely amended complaint and terminates or reinstates specified defendants.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) was warranted because plaintiff established that he submitted his objections for mailing on April 19, 2026, before the April 20 objection deadline.
2. Although plaintiff's allegations minimally identified the contours of personal involvement by alleging that the supervisory defendants directed or acquiesced in subordinate misconduct, the allegations lacked the specificity required to state cognizable claims. The claims against Harry, Varner, Irwin, Bogardus, Walker, Lesko, Spencer, and Fiedor were therefore dismissed without prejudice, with thirty days to amend and specify how each defendant was personally involved.
3. The claims against defendants Biel and Recher were dismissed with prejudice because their involvement was limited to the grievance process and was insufficient to establish liability under Section 1983.
4. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference and state-law negligence claims against Snyder were dismissed without prejudice, with thirty days to file an amended complaint. If plaintiff failed to amend appropriately, those dismissals would convert to dismissals with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reconsideration was warranted because plaintiff timely mailed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation before the objection deadline, even though the clerk received them afterward.
2. Whether plaintiff's allegations sufficiently pleaded personal involvement by the supervisory defendants in the alleged constitutional violations.
3. Whether claims involving defendants Biel and Recher were properly dismissed because their alleged involvement was limited to the grievance process.
4. Whether plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and state-law negligence claims against Defendant Snyder should remain dismissible without prejudice and subject to amendment.
5. Whether Defendant Snyder's motion to dismiss for failure to opt out was moot.

Disposition

vacated