Kaelin v. Blades et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is hereby ORDERED THAT the Report and Recommendation entered October 31, 2016 (Dkt. 57 ) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 49 , 50 ) are 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
JASON C. KAELIN,
Case No. 1:15-CV-0065-EJL
RANDY BLADES, Warden, ALBERTO
RAMIREZ, DR. KENNETH KHATAIN
and DR. SCOTT ELIASON,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
On October 31, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Defendants’ Motions
for Summary Judgment be granted. (Dkt. 57.) 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. The matter is ripe for the Court’s
consideration. See Local Civ. R. 72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1
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.
The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) stating:
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….“to the extent de novo review is
required to satisfy Article III concerns, it need not be exercised unless
requested by the parties.” Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the
parties themselves accept as correct.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted);
see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 complete procedural background and facts of this case are well articulated in
the Report and the Court incorporates the same in this Order. (Dkt. 57.) Plaintiff initiated
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2
this action by filing his Complaint against the Defendants raising claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights, state law claims of medical
negligence, and non-specified state law claims against Defendants Blades and Ramirez.
(Dkt. 3.) The claims generally allege the Defendants were deliberately indifferent and
medically negligent in addressing the Plaintiffs serious medical needs. (Dkt. 3.) Plaintiff
argues a state court order requires Defendants to provide him certain medications and
psychotherapy. Defendants filed the instant Motions for Summary Judgment which the
Report recommends granting. (Dkt. 49, 50.)
This Court has reviewed the Complaint, the parties’ briefing, 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 agrees in all respects with the Report
and adopts the same. The Report’s recitation of the facts is accurate and complete and
this Court concurs with the Report’s discussion of the applicable law and analysis
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3
applying that law to the facts in this case. For the reasons stated in the Report, the Court
will grant the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report and
Recommendation entered October 31, 2016 (Dkt. 57) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY
and the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 49, 50) are GRANTED.
DATED: January 27, 2017
Edward J. Lodge
United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4
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?