CLD-400 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 16-1044
___________
MELVIN KNIGHT,
Appellant
v.
JOHN R. WALTON, Warden employed at the WCP in Westmoreland Pennsylvania;
STEVEN J. CMAR, Deputy Warden employed at the WCP in Westmoreland
Pennsylvania; FLOYD MURPHY, Prison Guards employed at the Westmoreland County
Prison in Westmoreland Pennsylvania; BERNARD J. FUNK, JR., Prison Guards
employed at the Westmoreland County Prison in Wesmoreland Pennsylvania; KARL D.
LEDBETTER; JOSHUA A. KUDLIK; ROBERT CARTY; RONALD J. BURKHART;
DONALD RAIRIGH; ROBERT WRIGHT; BRAD V. TOMASELLO; GEORGE
LOWTHER; J. WILLIAMS; J. KEENAN, Prison Guards employed at the Westmoreland
County Prison in Westmoreland Pennsylvania; JENNIFER HARR; KINCAIDY, Medical
personnel employed by or assigned at the WCP in Westmoreland, Pennsylvania
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 2:12-cv-00984)
District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary
Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 1, 2016
Before: FISHER, JORDAN, and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 15, 2016)
______________
OPINION *
______________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Melvin Knight appeals from the District Court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants in his civil rights lawsuit. For
the reasons discussed below, we will affirm.
We have little to add to the Magistrate Judge’s comprehensive description of the
facts and evidence in this case, which is fully consistent with video evidence in the
record. R&R at 2-5, D. Ct. Doc. No. 132. Knight bases his claims on a series of
incidents that began with a search of his cell at Westmoreland County Prison on February
10, 2012, where Knight was a pretrial detainee. Knight alleged that the defendants, who
are prison officials and medical personnel at Westmoreland, violated his rights under the
First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Knight brought suit in the District Court on July 12, 2012, and twice amended his
complaint. On March 28, 2014, the District Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, with eight of Knight’s
original twenty-four counts surviving the dismissal motion. After discovery concluded,
the remaining defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which the Magistrate
Judge recommended granting. In that Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
2
notified the parties that unless they objected within fourteen days, they risked forfeiting
their right to appeal. Knight then moved to extend the time to file objections. The
Magistrate Judge granted that motion and extended the objections deadline to December
8, 2015, but warned Knight that no further extensions would be granted absent good
cause. Knight moved for the appointment of counsel on December 8, and the Magistrate
Judge denied that motion without prejudice to refile should the District Court decline to
adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Knight then moved again to extend the time to object to the Report and
Recommendation, this time filing an extension request signed December 11, 2015 and
postmarked December 14, 2015—either way, past the already-extended objections
deadline of December 8. That motion did not set forth any substantive basis for the
objections Knight wished to file. The sole bases Knight asserted for the extension
request were that “Plaintiff has been pre-occupied assisting my legal team in the next
[p]hase of [a]ppeals in the chance Plaintiff[’s] Death Warrant is signed by the Secretary
of Corrections” and that “Plaintiff needs an [a]dditional 30 days [e]xtension of time to
allow the person helping time to learn the case to effectively assist Plaintiff completing
his objections to [Y]our Honor’s Report & Recommendations.”
On December 17, the District Court granted the defendants’ motions for summary
judgment and adopted the Report and Recommendation in an order that correctly noted
that Knight had failed to object, but that incorrectly stated that Knight had not moved
again for an extension of time to object. Knight filed a timely notice of appeal on
3
January 8, 2016. Thereafter, the District Court issued an additional order that
acknowledged the misstatement in its summary judgment order and then considered
Knight’s request for a further extension of time to object. The District Court concluded
that there was no basis for any additional extension and denied the motion to extend.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the District Court’s
decision regarding a motion for an extension of time for abuse of discretion. Drippe v.
Tobelinski, 604 F.3d 778, 783 (3d Cir. 2010). We review the District Court’s ruling on a
motion for summary judgment de novo. Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge, 632 F.3d 822,
826 (3d Cir. 2011). Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all inferences in favor of that
party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Kaucher v. County of Bucks, 455
F.3d 418, 422-23 (3d Cir. 2006). Where there is a video recording of the relevant events,
the Court views the facts as depicted in the recording, rather than in the non-movant’s
favor, whenever the recording “blatantly contradict[s]” the non-movant’s version such
that “no reasonable jury could believe it.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007).
On issues for which a party failed to file timely objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s report after adequate notice, we instead review the District Court’s decision for
plain error. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2011). Under that
standard, we reverse only if there is an error that affects a party’s substantial rights in a
4
way that impacts the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Nara
v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 197 (3d Cir. 2007).
On appeal, Knight does not raise any substantive errors arising out of the District
Court’s analysis of the motions for summary judgment. Rather, Knight requests only that
we remand the case to the District Court with instructions that the District Court allow
Knight to file his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. In
support of that request, Knight asserts that his extension request was timely because the
prison’s lockdown status added a delay from the time when he gave the extension request
to prison officials to when the request was processed through the prison mail. Knight
also argues that the prison lockdown prevented him from visiting the prison law library to
work on his objections with a jailhouse lawyer who had been assisting him.
We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
grant Knight’s second extension request. First, the signature date on Knight’s filing
undermines his assertions about the lockdown delay: his extension motion is dated
December 11, which falls after the December 8 objections deadline regardless of what
transpired with the prison mail. But more to the point, Knight never showed the requisite
good cause to support an additional extension request before the District Court. His
belated and unsupported assertion before this Court that the two-month extension he had
already received was insufficient for him to exercise his rights cannot change that fact.
Thus, in the absence of timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation, we will reverse the District Court if and only if it committed error that
5
affected Knight’s substantial rights in a way that impacted the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings. See Brightwell, 637 F.3d at 193; Nara, 488
F.3d at 197. No such plain error appears in the District Court’s summary judgment
ruling. The Magistrate Judge in this case recited each asserted basis for relief in detail,
the evidence in the record that related to each claim, and whether that evidence created a
genuine issue of material fact. As the Magistrate Judge carefully explained, the video
evidence and Knight’s own admissions contradicted Knight’s claims of excessive force,
failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and mental or
emotional injury. The District Court was inarguably correct to adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis as the opinion of the court, and Knight received fair consideration of his
claims in all respects.
Consequently, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment. Knight’s motion for
the appointment of counsel on appeal is dismissed as moot.
6