United States District Court, D. Delaware
JOHN E. MILLER, Plaintiff,
C.O. CHRISTINE CONING, C.O. BLAKE WARNICK, WARDEN PERRY PHELPS, C.O. SGT. McGINNIS, C.O. CPL. SCHAFFER, AND C.O. RAYMOND HANNUM, Defendants.
LEONARD P. STARK, District Judge.
At Wilmington this 7th day of August, 2014:
WHEREAS, Magistrate Judge Fallon issued a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") (D.I. 92), dated February 28, 2014, recommending Defendants C.O. Christine Coning ("Coning"), C.O. Blake Warnick ("Warnick"), Warden Perry Phelps ("Warden Phelps"), C.O. Sgt. McGinnis ("McGinnis"), C.O. Cpl. Schaffer ("Schaffer"), and C.O. Raymond Hannum's ("Hannum") (collectively, "Defendants") motion for summary judgment be granted with respect to John E. Miller's ("Miller" or "Plaintiff') retaliation claims against Defendants McGinnis (Count III) and Schaffer (Count V);
WHEREAS, the Report further recommends that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied with respect to Plaintiff's claims against Coning, Warnick, Hannum and Warden Phelps;
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report (D.I. 93);
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2014, Defendants filed objections to the Report (D.I. 94);
WHEREAS, no party filed a response to any other party's objections;
WHEREAS, the Court has considered the motion for summary judgment (D.I. 73) de nova, as it presents case-dispositive issues, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), and has further reviewed all of the pertinent filings;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's objections (D.I. 93) are OVERRULED. The Court agrees with Judge Fallon's analysis of the record with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Defendants McGinnis and Shaffer.
2. Defendants' objections (D.I. 94) are OVERRULED, as explained more fully below.
3. The Magistrate Judge's Report is ADOPTED.
4. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 73) is GRANTED IN PART, specifically with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Defendants McGinnis (Count III) and Schaffer (Count V). As noted, the Court agrees with the Report that the record does not contain sufficient evidence from. which a reasonable finder of fact could find for Plaintiff on each of the essential elements of the retaliation claims against McGinnis and Schaffer.
5. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (D.I. 73) is also DENIED IN PART. With respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claim against ...