Crawford v. Sec Dept Corrections ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
3-28-2006
Crawford v. Sec Dept Corrections
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-1274
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Crawford v. Sec Dept Corrections" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1379.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1379
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 05-1274
MARSHA CRAWFORD,
Appellant
v.
JEFFREY A. BEARD, SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DENNIS R. ERHARD,
Regional Deputy Secretary Bureau of Inmate Services;
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, SUPERINTENDENT; HUGH OWENS, Lieutenant;
SERGEANT BERNICE WOMACK, Lieutenant; GREGOIRE, Corrections
Officer; OFFICER ROBINSON, CORRECTION OFFICER; DR. BUTLER,
CORRECTIONS OFFICER; SELDON, CORRECTIONS OFFICER
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Civil No. 04-cv-00777)
District Judge: Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1
February 2, 2006
Before: MCKEE, SMITH AND VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed March 28, 2006 )
OPINION
MCKEE, Circuit Judge
Marsha Crawford appeals the district court’s grant of Summary Judgment on the
claim she brought to recover for injuries she sustained in the course of performing her
duties as a nurse in the Mental Health Unit at the State Correctional Institution at
Graterford. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Since we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we need
not set forth the factual or procedural background of this suit. In his thoughtful
Memorandum and Order, dated January 19, 2005, the Honorable Clarence C. Newcomer,
explained why plaintiff cannot recover under the state created danger theory, see Kneipp
v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1207 (3rd. Cir. 1996); as well as why plaintiff can not establish
that defendants actions breached the applicable standard of care. See DeShaney v.
Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989). The district
court’s analysis was correct, and we will affirm the district court’s grant of Summary
Judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff substantially for the reasons
set forth in that Memorandum and Order.
2