Stokes v. Anderson et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting 22 Report and Recommendation which recommends 20 defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted and this case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Judgment shall enter accordingly. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 12/08/2015. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
LAMARIO STOKES,
No. C15-3095-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
JANA
HACKER
ANDERSON,

and

Defendants.

KAREN

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
CONCERNING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

___________________________
I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This case is before me on United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand's
Report and Recommendation concerning defendants Jana Hacker and Karen Anderson’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (docket no. 22). In his Report and Recommendation,
Judge Strand recommends granting defendants’ motion and dismissing this case.
Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due within fourteen days of the
service of a copy of Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation, that is, on or before
December 7, 2015. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). No party filed
a timely request for an extension of the deadline for objections, and no party filed any
timely objections.
On July 13, 2015, plaintiff Lamario Stokes filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Stokes, an inmate at the Fort Dodge Correctional
Facility (“FDCF”), Fort Dodge, Iowa, claims that defendants Jana Hacker and Karen
Anderson (“defendants”) violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and

unusual punishment.

Specifically, Stokes alleges that defendants are deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs regarding the treatment of his psoriasis. This case
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B).
Defendants moved for summary judgment. Defendants argue that Stokes’s claims
are barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Stokes did not resist defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Judge Strand issued a
Report and Recommendation in which he recommended granting defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment.

Judge Strand found that Stokes’s claims were barred, under

§ 1997e(a), because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

II.

LEGAL ANAYSIS

I review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation pursuant to the
statutory standards found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1):
A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further
evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2006); see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements);
N.D. IA. L.R. 7.1 (allowing the referral of dispositive matters to a magistrate judge but
not articulating any standards to review the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme
Court explained:
Any party that desires plenary consideration by the
Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while
the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de
novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further
2

review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a
party, under a de novo or any other standard.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo
any issue in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party
files an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the
district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required “to give any
more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate.”
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.
In this case, no objections have been filed, and it appears to me, upon review of
Judge Strand’s findings and conclusions, that there is no ground to reject or modify them.
Therefore, I accept Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation on defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment.

III.

CONCLUSION

I accept Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation and, therefore, grant
defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment. Judgment shall enter accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of December, 2015.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

3