Mathison v. USA
Filing
84
ORDER by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/26/15. ORDERED: The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 72] is ACCEPTED. ORDERED: Plaintiff Eugene H. Mathison's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 60] is DENIED. ORDERED: Def endant the United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 64] is GRANTED. ORDERED: Defendant the United States of America's Motion for Leave to File Surreply [Docket No. 77] is DENIED as Moot. ORDERED: Plaintiff Eugene H . Mathison's Unopposed Request to Submit for Decision [Docket No. 83] is DENIED as Moot. ORDERED: Within 14 days of the entry of judgment, defendant may have its costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court. ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety. (kpreu)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00110-PAB-NYW
EUGENE H. MATHISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 72] (the “Recommendation”). The magistrate judge
recommends that the Court deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Docket No.
60] and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 64]. On
September 15, 2014, plaintiff filed timely objections to the Recommendation. Docket
No. 73.
The Court will “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition
that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). In the absence of a
proper objection, the Court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any
standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.
1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“[i]t does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings”). An objection is proper if it is specific enough to enable the Court “to focus
attention on those issues–factual and legal–that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”
United States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). In light of
plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes his filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 & n.3 (10th Cir. 1991).
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 when the “movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986). A disputed f act is “material” if under the relevant
substantive law it is essential to proper disposition of the claim. Wright v. Abbott Labs.,
Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1231-32 (10th Cir. 2001). Only disputes over material facts can
create a genuine issue for trial and preclude summary judgment. Faustin v. City &
Cnty. of Denver, 423 F.3d 1192, 1198 (10th Cir. 2005). An issue is “g enuine” if the
evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839 (10th Cir. 1997).
Where “the moving party does not bear the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial,
it may satisfy its burden at the summary judgment stage by identifying a lack of
evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim.”
Bausman v. Interstate Brands Corp., 252 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “Once the moving party meets this burden, the burden shifts to the
2
nonmoving party to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial on a material matter.”
Concrete Works of Colo., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1518 (10th Cir.
1994) (citation omitted). The nonmoving party may not rest solely on the allegations in
the pleadings, but instead must designate “specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). “To avoid
summary judgment, the nonmovant must establish, at a minimum, an inference of the
presence of each element essential to the case.” Bausman, 252 F.3d at 1115 (citing
Hulsey v. Kmart, Inc., 43 F.3d 555, 557 (10th Cir. 1994)). “In applying this standard, we
view all facts and any reasonable inferences that might be drawn from them in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Henderson v. Inter-Chem Coal Co., Inc., 41
F.3d 567, 569 (10th Cir. 1994).
II. ANALYSIS
At all relevant times, plaintiff was an inmate at the Federal Prison Camp (“FPC”)
in Florence, Colorado. Docket No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the
Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for
“personal injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any
employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment.”
28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). Plaintiff brings three claims of negligence against FPC staff
related to his alleged loss of hearing caused by the unreasonably high volume of FPC’s
public address (“PA”) system. See id. Additional relevant facts are set forth in detail in
the Recommendation, see Docket No. 72 at 3-5, and will not be recited here except as
relevant to the Court’s de novo review.
3
The magistrate judge found, based on plaintiff’s representations in his response
to defendant’s motion, that plaintiff has abandoned his first two negligence claims.1
Docket No. 72 at 6. Plaintiff did not object to this holding. See Docket No. 73. The
Court has reviewed this aspect of the Recommendation and is satisfied that there is “no
clear error on the face of the record.”2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Plaintiff’s remaining claim for relief alleges that FPC staff was negligent in
resolving the unsafe noise levels of the PA system. See Docket No. 1 at 11. “The
elements of a negligence claim consist of the existence of a legal duty by the defendant
to the plaintiff, breach of that duty by the defendant, injury to the plaintiff, and a
sufficient causal relationship between the defendant’s breach and the plaintiff’s
injuries.” Connes v. Molalla Transp. Sys., Inc., 831 P.2d 1316, 1320 (Colo. 1992)
(citations omitted).
The Recommendation found that defendant owed plaintiff a duty and that a
genuine dispute of fact exists as to whether or not defendant breached that duty.
Docket No. 72 at 7-9. The Recommendation found, however, that plaintiff did not
submit evidence of a causal relationship between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s
injury sufficient to create a dispute of material fact. Id. at 13-15. Specifically, the
1
Plaintiff’s first claim, “Negligence of employees of the [FPC] at Florence,
Colorado, resulted in the loss of hearing of Plaintiff,” alleged that in 2011 FPC staff
turned up the volume on the PA system to the point where it became physically
harmful. Docket No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff’s second claim is for “Negligence on the part of
employees of the BOP in the placement and location of the P.A. system loudspeakers.”
Id. at 10.
2
This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
4
Recommendation found that plaintiff was required to provide expert testimony on
causation, and that plaintiff submitted only evidence that tended to show a temporal
relationship between the increase in PA system volume and his hearing loss. Id. at 1314 (citing Lynch v. L’Oreal USA S/D, Inc., No. 11-cv-01343-RBJ-MWJ, 2012 WL
4356231 (D. Colo. Sept. 24, 2012)). Plaintif f argues in his objection that a lay witness
is competent to testify concerning his injuries. Docket No. 73 at 3 (citing Lynch, 2012
WL 4356231 at *3). Plaintiff further points to the numerous sworn declarations that he
submitted in support of the temporal connection between his hearing loss and the
increase in volume of the PA system. Docket No. 73 at 3.
Although plaintiff submitted numerous declarations from his family members and
from inmates at FPC, see Docket No. 60 at 17, 22-25, those declarations address only
the fact of plaintiff’s hearing loss and its temporal proximity to defendant’s alleged
negligent conduct. Plaintiff does not submit evidence from a competent medical expert
that shows that his injuries were caused by the volume of the PA system at FPC.
In the Tenth Circuit, “where injuries complained of are of such character as to
require skilled and professional persons to determine the cause and extent thereof,
they must be proved by the testimony of medical experts[.]” Franklin v. Shelton, 250
F.2d 92, 97 (10th Cir. 1957). W hile a lay plaintiff is competent to testify about the injury
itself and any resultant suffering, id. at 98, “causation opinion can only be rendered on
the basis of specialized knowledge held by an expert qualified by medical education.”
Wilkins v. Kmart Corp., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1216, 1221 (D. Kan. 2007).
Plaintiff’s evidence supports only a temporal connection between his hearing
5
loss and FPC staff’s decision to turn up the volume on the prison’s PA system. The
Court, however, “is not permitted to . . . rely on the temporal relationship by itself as
evidence of causation.” Goebel v. Denver and Rio Grande Western R.R. Co., 346 F.3d
987, 999 (10th Cir. 2003). Plaintiff stresses that the declarations number nearly a
dozen, Docket No. 73 at 3, but plaintiff cannot cure a lack of medical evidence of
causation simply by submitting a large volume of evidence to support temporal
proximity. Accordingly, the Court finds no error with the Recommendation’s finding that
plaintiff has not met his burden of showing a genuine dispute of material fact on the
element of causation.3
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 72] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff Eugene H. Mathison’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Docket No. 60] is DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that defendant the United States of America’s Motion for Summary
3
Plaintiff objects at length to the conclusions of defendants’ expert, Dr. Wayne.
See Docket No. 73 at 5-10. Plaintiff also filed a reply in support of his objection, in
which he argued that Dr. Wayne’s expert opinion was based on a “spurious document”
provided by defendant’s counsel. See Docket No. 76 at 2. Defendant’s counsel moved
for leave to file a surreply to rebut plaintiff’s accusation. See Docket No. 77. The Court
need not address these issues. The Recommendation did not rely on Dr. Wayne’s
expert opinion. The magistrate judge reached his finding due to plaintiff’s lack of
competent evidence of causation. See Docket No. 72 at 14-15. As explained in this
order, that lack of evidence is fatal to plaintiff’s negligence claim, for which plaintiff
bears the burden of persuasion at trial.
6
Judgment [Docket No. 64] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that defendant the United States of America’s Motion for Leave to
File Surreply [Docket No. 77] is DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff Eugene H. Mathison’s Unopposed Request to Submit for
Decision [Docket No. 83] is DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that, within 14 days of the entry of judgment, defendant may have its
costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety.
DATED February 26, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?