govinfo:USCOURTS-pawd-2_21-cv-01210-6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
STEPHEN BARRY GIBBONS,  ) 
      )  
 Plaintiff,    ) 
   v.   )     Civil No. 21-1210 
      )  
SABANDA,     ) 
      )  
Defendant.    ) 
   
  
 MEMORANDUM ORDER 
 
 This case has been referred to United Stat es Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly for 
pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C.  § 636(b)(1), and 
Rule 72 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges. On November 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge 
issued a Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 123, addressing the cross Motions for Summary 
Judgment filed by Plaintiff Stephen Barry Gibbons and Defendant Sabanda. The Magistrate 
Judge recommended that Sabanda’s Motion be granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. 
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by December 4, 2025. Plaintiff sought, 
and was granted, an extension to January 9, 2026. However, due to non-delivery of the Court’s 
Order to Plaintiff, and the non-delivery of a subsequent Order, the Court extended the time for 
filing Objections to February 13, 2026, and subsequently to March 4, 2026. See ECF Nos. 126, 
127 & 129. Thereafter, the Court granted Mr. Gibbons’ final request for an additional extension, 
resulting in a deadline of April 20, 2026. See ECF Nos. 130 & 131. Mr. Gibbons timely filed 
Objections on April 20, 2026. ECF No. 134. 
 The filing of timely objections requires the district judge to “make a de novo 
determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.”   28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).  
Case 2:21-cv-01210-MJH-MPK     Document 135     Filed 04/27/26     Page 1 of 4
2 
 
Following a de novo review of the relevant pleadings and documents in this case, together with 
the Report and Recommendation, and Objections thereto, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s 
Objections do not undermine the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.   
 Mr. Gibbons’ Objections consist primarily of presenting his general arguments and 
evidence he already presented to, and which was considered by, the Magistrate Judge. In 
response to said arguments, the Court does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning 
or her application of the law to the facts.  
 Next, Mr. Gibbons objects to the Magistrate Judge’s determination that he is unable to 
state a claim pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et 
seq., because the statute does not apply to state and local governments. ECF No. 123, at 12 n. 4. 
Mr. Gibbons argues that when the RFRA was first enacted, the term “government” included state 
and local officials. ECF No. 134 at 8. Mr. Gibbons’ argument is unavailing, as it does not refute 
the Magistrate Judge’s accurate conclusion that the RFRA does not apply to state and local 
governments.  
 Mr. Gibbons also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion regarding his religious 
preference being changed from Muslim to none, in October 2019. The Magistrate Judge 
correctly stated that Mr. Gibbons’ change in religious preference was not, and could not have 
been, performed by Sabanda, because the change occurred when Mr. Gibbons was housed at 
SCI-Forest. Sabanda, however, was employed at SCI-Greene during the relevant time. Mr. 
Gibbons, however, focuses on his assertion that he, Mr. Gibbons, did not  request that his 
religious preference change. Nevertheless, Sabanda cannot be held legally responsible for Mr. 
Gibbons’ change in religious preference because Sabanda had no personal involvement in the 
conduct.   
Case 2:21-cv-01210-MJH-MPK     Document 135     Filed 04/27/26     Page 2 of 4
3 
 
 Finally, Mr. Gibbons appears to object to th e Magistrate Judge’s analysis, arguing that 
she failed to properly consider Defendant Sabanda’s conduct in intentionally disregarding his 
Chaplain duties and in intentionally denying Mr. Gibbons his right to participate in Ramadan. He 
alleges that Sabanda, “intentionally waited until 4-27-2020 to process [Mr. Gibbons’] change of 
religious form, so that I wouldn’t be able to participate in Ramadan because he personally 
believed I was a gang member.” ECF No. 134 at 3. Additionally, he alleges that Sabanda could 
have taken steps earlier in the process to ensure that Mr. Gibbons would be able to participate in 
Ramadan, but he did not. Mr. Gibbons argues that if the Magistrate Judge had properly 
considered such allegations, it would demonstrate that his right to free exercise of religion was 
violated.  
 The Magistrate Judge found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that 
Sabanda did not unduly burden Mr. Gibbons’ practice of his religion. On April 7, 2020, Sabanda 
received Mr. Gibbons’ Inmate Request for a Religious Preference Form. Sabanda provided Mr. 
Gibbons with the Religious Preference Form on April 10, 2020. On April 14, 2020, Mr. Gibbons 
provided the completed form. The change of religion was recorded in the Department of 
Corrections’ system on April 27, 2020, which was four days after Ramadan began. The amount 
of time, from April 7, 2020 to April 27, 2020, was less than the thirty days within which the 
DOC is required to process the change of religious preference form, pursuant to the DOC’s 
“Religious Activities” Policy Statement, DC-ADM 819. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge 
concluded that  because there was no conduct by Sabanda violating Mr. Gibbons’ rights, 
summary judgment in favor of Sabanda was appropriate.  
 The Court agrees with the Magistrate J udge. Mr. Gibbons points to alleged intentional 
discrimination on the part of Sabanda, primarily through “slow-walking” and delaying Mr. 
Case 2:21-cv-01210-MJH-MPK     Document 135     Filed 04/27/26     Page 3 of 4
4 
 
Gibbons efforts to change his religious preference. Such allegations, however, cannot overcome 
the undisputed facts demonstrating that once Sabanda received Mr. Gibbons’ request for a 
religious preference form, he processed it and recorded the change within the thirty-day time 
period established by DOC Policy.  
 For the reasons stated above, Mr. Gibbons’ Objections are overruled. For the reasons 
stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court will adopt the Magistrate Judge's 
recommendation. After de novo review of the pleadings and the documents in the case, together 
with the Report and Recommendation, the following Order is entered:   
 
AND NOW, this 27th day of April 2026, it is ORDERED that the Report and 
Recommendation, ECF No. 123, filed on November 17, 2025, is adopted as the Opinion of the 
Court.   
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment , ECF No, 107, is DENIED, and Defendant 
Sabanda’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 109, is GRANTED. Judgment in favor of 
Sabanda and against Mr. Gibbons will entered by separate Judgment Order.  
       _ _ s / Marilyn J. Horan__________ 
       M a r i l y n  J .  H o r a n  
       United States District Court Judge 
 
 
Stephen Barry Gibbons 
JS-2304  
SCI Greene  
169 Progress Drive  
Waynesburg, PA 15370 
 
Case 2:21-cv-01210-MJH-MPK     Document 135     Filed 04/27/26     Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight