Lea v. Zollman et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on 5/18/16 (Dkt. 37 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as follows: 1) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 34 ) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED. 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

LARRY LEA,
Case No. 1:14-CV-00045-EJL
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
ADMAS COUNTY SHERIFF RYAN
ZOLLMAN; UNDERSHERIFF JEFF
BROWN, OFFICER DAVIS, ADAMS
COUNTY, AND ADMAS COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
On May 18, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending that Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment be granted. (Dkt. 37.) 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
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). No written objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed.
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) . . . .
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. (Dkt.
37.) Plaintiff Larry Lea (“Plaintiff”) filed his amended complaint on June 3, 2014
against Defendants Adams County Sheriff Ryan Zollman, Undersheriff Jeff
Brown, Officer Robert Davis, Adams County, and Adams County Board of

Commissioners. Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and also alleges
unidentified state law claims. The claims relate to Plaintiff’s allegations that
Defendants subjected him to dangerous prison conditions by housing him in a cell
block with a mentally unstable and dangerous inmate, who ultimately attacked
him. (Dkt. 9.) The subject of the Report is the Motion for Summary Judgment that
Defendants filed as to all remaining claims against them on February 23, 2016.
(Dkt. 34.) Magistrate Judge Candy Dale issued the Report on May 18, 2016,
recommending that the district court grant the Motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendants. (Dkt. 37.)
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 that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
should be granted. (Dkt. 37.) Moreover, the Court is in agreement with the
Report’s recitation of the facts, discussion of the applicable law, and analysis. For
these reasons and those stated in the Report, the Court will adopt the Report and
grant the Defendants’ Motion.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and
Recommendation entered on May 18, 2016 (Dkt. 37) is ADOPTED IN ITS
ENTIRETY as follows:
1)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 34) is GRANTED
and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED.
DATED: July 14, 2016

_________________________
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge