Harrelson v. Dupnik et al

Filing 137

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 100 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 105 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 131 Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and Recommendation. Joint Pretrial Order due on or before 9/27/2013. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 8/27/2013.(BAR) Modified on 8/27/2013 to add text (BAR).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Clarence W. Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima)
)
County, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
Jacquelyn Harrelson,

No. CV 11-411-TUC-FRZ
ORDER

10
11

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge

12

Estrada. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Estrada recommends denying

13

in part and granting in part Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. As the Court finds

14

that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motions for summary

15

judgment, the objections are denied.1

16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

17

(1) Magistrate Judge Estrada’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 131) is accepted and

18

adopted.

19

(2) The motions for summary judgment (Docs. 100, 105) are denied in part and granted in

20

part as reflected in the Report and Recommendation.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to
portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739
(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). The Court
notes that Plaintiff requested clarification as to wrongful death damages; the request is granted to
the extent that the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s understanding of the Report and Recommendation.
See Doc. 132 at p. 2 (“Plaintiff understands the Report to mean that she and Gregory Harrelson may
recover wrongful death damages for the conduct alleged in Counts One, Two, and Five, as those
counts survived partial summary judgment because, taking the facts in the light most favorable to
the Plaintiff, there is a triable issue that the actions and inactions of the County, the Conmed
Defendants, and the Individual Conmed Defendants caused M.J.H.'s death.”)

1

(3) The parties shall file a proposed Joint Pretrial Order on or before 9/27/13, which shall

2

include, but not be limited to, that prescribed in the form of Joint Pretrial Order attached. As

3

pretrial motions remain to be resolved as the Court expects that the parties will file motions

4

in limine, this case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge to issue a Report and

5

Recommendation as to any motions in limine (or other pretrial motions). Motions in limine

6

shall be filed no later than the date of filing the proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Responses to

7

motions in limine are due 14 days after the filing of the motion. Unless otherwise ordered

8

by the Magistrate Judge, no replies are permitted and motions in limine and responses thereto

9

shall not exceed five pages. After the Court receives the Report and Recommendation, any

10

objections, and issues an Order as to the Report and Recommendation, the Court will

11

withdraw the reference to the Magistrate Judge and issue a final pretrial Order setting dates

12

for trial, the pretrial conference, and the filing of proposed jury instructions, voir dire and

13

verdict forms.2
DATED this 27th day of August, 2013.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

If the parties think that a settlement conference could be fruitful, the Court will refer
this case to another United States Magistrate Judge to preside over a settlement conference
at no cost to the parties. If the parties want to pursue this option, they should file a
stipulation requesting a settlement conference; upon receipt of such stipulation, the Court will
issue an Order assigning a United States Magistrate Judge for the conference and will stay
all the deadlines in the case pending the outcome of the settlement conference.
-2-