
    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.
    No. 05-1274.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1 Feb. 2, 2006.
    Decided March 28, 2006.
    Teri B. Himebaugh, Schwenksville, PA, for Appellant.
    Calvin R. Koons, Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA, for Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Dennis R. Erhard, Regional Deputy Secretary Bureau of Inmate Services, David Diguglielmo, Superintendent, Hugh Owens, Leiutenant, Sergeant Bernice Womack, Lieutenant, Gregoire, Corrections Officer, Officer Robinson, Correction Officer, Dr. Butler, Corrections Officer, Seldon, Corrections Officer.
    Before McKEE, SMITH and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.
   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, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (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.  