Moyer v. Lebanon County, 3:16-CV-1424. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180221d14
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 18 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018, upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 75) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 75) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein. 1 2. The Lebanon County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) is DENIED. 3. The above-captioned action is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Meh
Summary: ORDER ROBERT D. MARIANI , District Judge . AND NOW, THIS 18 th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018, upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 75) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The R&R (Doc. 75) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein. 1 2. The Lebanon County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) is DENIED. 3. The above-captioned action is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Meha..
More
ORDER
ROBERT D. MARIANI, District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018, upon review of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 75) for clear error or manifest injustice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The R&R (Doc. 75) is ADOPTED for the reasons stated therein.1
2. The Lebanon County Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 48) is DENIED.
3. The above-captioned action is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for proceedings consistent with this Order.
FootNotes
1. Despite the adoption of the R&R, this Court is not convinced that the Amended Complaint is any less conclusory than the original Complaint. This is particularly true as it relates to the allegation that, as characterized by the Magistrate Judge, "Gerstner knew that Herr would not receive critical attention" (Doc. 75, at 8 (citing Doc. 45, at ¶ 50 (stating that "Defendant Gerstner and all other LCCF personnel knew that Ms. Herr would not be provided adequate care and that LCCF's policies regarding the treatment of heroin withdrawal would not be followed."))). Further, with respect to the deliberate indifference claim, although the Magistrate Judge states that the standard for a claim for deliberate indifference is "lessened" from the standard under the Eighth Amendment in cases "falling under the Fourteenth Amendment for pretrial detainees such as Herr", it is important to note that the Supreme Court has held that the due process rights of pretrial detainees "are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner." City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983) (emphasis added). Finally, with respect to the claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, the Court will defer its serious concerns as to the validity of this cause of action under applicable law until the completion of discovery.
Source: Leagle
