Holton v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RUBEN C. HOLTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-00070
(SAPORITO, J.)
(CARABALLO, M.J.)
ORDER
Now before the court is a report and recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Philip J. Caraballo, in which he recommends
that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 58) be granted.
(Doc. 63).
On 	March 	11, 	2025, 	we 	adopted, 	as 	modified, 	a 	report 	and
recommendation 	from 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	William 	I.
Arbuckle1 (Doc. 50) granting the United States’s motion for judgment on
the pleadings in part and denying it in part. (Doc. 52). While noting that
the plaintiff had failed to support his claims of ordinary and professional
1 This case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Phillip J.
Caraballo 	since 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Arbuckle 	issued 	his 	Report 	and
Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle has since retired.
Case 4:22-cv-00070-JFS Document 64 Filed 03/02/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
negligence against the government for the plaintiff ’s alleged injury of
contracting COVID-19 while being housed at the Federal Correctional
Institution, Schuylkill (“FCI Schuylkill”), we found that the plaintiff had
sufficiently supported his claims of ordinary and professional negligence
as to the plaintiff ’s lingering and permanent COVID-19 symptoms and
“pain of mind” injuries. But we explained that our “holding … does not
excuse the plaintiff ’s burden in proving the requisite elements of a
medical malpractice claim including potential testimony from a medical
expert to prevail on that claim” and “does not impact the potential
viability of the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff needs to present
expert testimony to ultimately prevail on his claim.” (
Id., at 24, 25 n.9).
In other words, we found that while the plaintiff had alleged sufficient
facts to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the plaintiff ’s
allegations alone were not enough to survive a potential motion for
summary judgment.
Here, Judge Carballo echoes this sentiment in his report and
recommendation. Upon review of the government’s motion for summary
judgment, 	Judge 	Caraballo 	found 	that 	the 	while 	the 	government
introduced expert evidence to support its motion, the plaintiff “seeks to
Case 4:22-cv-00070-JFS Document 64 Filed 03/02/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
survive summary judgment by leveraging the Court’s decision on the
United States’ motion for judgment on the pleadings” rather than offering
any necessary expert evidence for his professional negligence claim or
any 	evidence 	to 	support 	his 	ordinary 	negligence 	claims 	to 	survive
summary judgment.
See (Doc. 63, at 30, 36) (“Holton was required to
produce 	his 	own 	supporting 	expert 	testimony. 	His 	failure 	to 	do 	so
precludes him from succeeding on his medical negligence claim” and
“Holton has not offered any expert evidence to create a genuine issue of
fact concerning his professional negligence claim [] and no reasonable
factfinder 	could 	find 	that 	the 	United 	States 	committed 	medical
malpractice based on the existing record”);
see also (
Id., at 43) (“Nothing
in 	the 	record 	evinces 	any 	refusal 	to 	administer, 	or 	delays 	in
administering[,] medical treatment, and Holton does not identify any
evidence corroborating his claim. Nor does he explain, through evidence
or otherwise, how the treatment he received was flawed or delayed….”).
Indeed, Judge Caraballo found that the record indicated that the plaintiff
received consistent treatment from prison medical staff in response to the
plaintiff ’s 	complaints 	and 	that 	the 	plaintiff ’s 	lingering 	COVID-19
symptoms were caused by actions independent of the government’s
Case 4:22-cv-00070-JFS Document 64 Filed 03/02/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
action. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Caraballo recommends granting
the government’s motion for summary judgment.
No 	timely 	objections 	have 	been 	filed 	to 	the 	report 	and
recommendation, resulting in the forfeiture of de novo review by this
court.
See Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007);
Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878–79 (3d Cir. 1987).
Following an independent review of the report and the record, and
having afforded “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of
the report,
E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017),
we are satisfied “that there is no clear error on the face of the record,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment. We find
Judge Caraballo’s analysis to be well-reasoned and fully supported by the
record and applicable law. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report
and recommendation in its entirety as the decision of the court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The report and recommendation of Judge Caraballo (Doc. 63)
is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
2. 	The defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 58) is
GRANTED; and
Case 4:22-cv-00070-JFS Document 64 Filed 03/02/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
3. 	The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of the defendant.
4. 	The Clerk shall close this case.
Dated: March 3, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 4:22-cv-00070-JFS Document 64 Filed 03/02/26 Page 5 of 5