Newsome v. Reinke et al

Filing 53

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 51 . The Report and Recommendation entered on 12/30/15 (Dkt. 51 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Edward J. Lodge. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

THOMAS ELLIS NEWSOME,
Case No. 1:13-CV-00511-EJL-CWD
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

v.
BRENT REINKE, JAY NIELSON,
ROBIN SANDY, WARDEN BLADES,
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, NURSE
PRACTITIONER PAULSEN, DR.
YOUNG, WILLIAM WINGERT, and
JOHN DOES -2,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On December 30, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted. (Dkt. 51.) Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s
proposed recommendation by filing written objections to the Report within fourteen days
after being served with a copy of the same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil Rule
72.1(b). The district court must then “make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.
The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings and
ORDER- 1

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The
Plaintiff did not file any written objections.1 The matter is ripe for the Court’s consideration.
See Local Civil Rule 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Where
the parties object to a report and recommendation, this Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection is made.” Id. Where, however,
no objections are filed the district court need not conduct a de novo review. In United States
v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), the court interpreted the requirements
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C):
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear that the district judge
must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise. As the Peretz Court instructed, “to the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be
exercised unless requested by the parties.” Peretz, 501 U.S. at 939 (internal
citation omitted). Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district
judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties
themselves accept as correct. See Ciapponi, 77 F.3d at 1251 (“Absent an
objection or request for review by the defendant, the district court was not
required to engage in any more formal review of the plea proceeding.”); see
also Peretz, 501 U.S. at 937-39 (clarifying that de novo review not required for
Article III purposes unless requested by the parties) . . . .

1

Plaintiff has filed a letter requesting a pretrial and referencing information and his
medical files. (Dkt. 52.) This letter does not state any objections to the Report and, instead,
appears to request a hearing in this matter. Based on the Court’s ruling in this Order and the
Report, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s request for a pretrial hearing.
ORDER- 2

See also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, to the
extent that no objections are made, arguments to the contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are not filed within fourteen days
of service of the Report and Recommendation). “When no timely objection is filed, the Court
need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v.
United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir.1974)).
The Court has reviewed the entire Report as well as the full record in this matter for
clear error on the face of the record and none has been found.
DISCUSSION
The complete procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in the
Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. Plaintiff initiated this action by
filing his Complaint against the Defendants raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violation of Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights. (Dkt. 3.) In general, the claims allege the
Defendants were deliberately indifferent in addressing the Plaintiffs serious medical needs
concerning his back and neck condition. (Dkt. 3.) The Court’s Initial Review Order allowed
the Plaintiff to proceed on his claims against certain of the Defendants. (Dkt. 11.) Thereafter,
the Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. 32.)

ORDER- 3

This Court has reviewed the original briefing of the parties, the Report, and the entire
record herein. In doing so, the Court is mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and, as
such, the filings and motions are construed liberally. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144,
1150 (9th Cir. 2010). That being said, while pro se litigants are held to less stringent
standards, a litigant's pro se status does not excuse him or her from complying with the
procedural or substantive rules of the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 757 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held
“an ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must comply strictly with the summary
judgment rules.” Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219
(9th Cir. 2007)).
Applying these principles here, this Court is in agreement with the reasoning and
conclusion of the Report finding no disputed issues of fact to indicate the course of treatment
provided by the Defendants was medically unacceptable under the circumstances or chosen
in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to the Plaintiff’s health. (Dkt. 51.) Moreover, the
Court is in agreement with the Report’s recitation of the facts, discussion of the applicable
law, and analysis. For these reasons, the Court will adopt the Report and grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment.

ORDER- 4

ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on December 30, 2015 (Dkt. 51) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY and the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 32) is GRANTED.
DATED: January 21, 2016

Honorable Edward J. Lodge
U. S. District Judge

ORDER- 5