Molina v. Rivello et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIGUEL MOLINA,
Plaintiff,
v.
J. RIVELLO, et al.,
Defendants.
No. 3:23-CV-01111
(Chief Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
ORDER
M ARCH 3, 2026
Miguel Molina filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint alleging that
several individuals retaliated against him in retribution for him having filed
grievances and complaints.1 On January 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge Martin C.
Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court grant
in part and deny in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.2 No timely
objections were filed to this Report and Recommendation.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will
review the recommendation only for clear error.3 Regardless of whether objections
are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the
1 	Doc. 1.
2 	Doc. 67.
3 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations
regardless of whether objections were filed).
Case 3:23-cv-01111-MWB Document 68 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 4 Upon review of the
record, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s
recommendation that the motion for summary judgment be granted in part and
denied in part. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. 	Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 67) is ADOPTED;
2. 	Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 49) is GRANTED
in part and DENIED in part as follows:
A. 	The motion is granted as to Molina’s conspiracy claim and First
Amendment retaliation claim as it relates to Molina’s cell
transfers;
B. 	The motion is denied as to Molina’s First Amendment retaliation
claim as it relates to confinement in the restricted housing unit
and facility transfer.
3. 	A telephonic status conference shall be scheduled by separate Order.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge
4 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Case 3:23-cv-01111-MWB Document 68 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 2