Dean v. Michels et al
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 in full. This dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 2/28/2018. Mailed to Dean (TAG)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
ROBERT WADE DEAN,
CV-17-00064-BU-BMM-JCL
Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
JAMIE MICHELS and KATIE
DONATH,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Robert Dean filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants violated his
federal constitutional right to privacy by disclosing certain medical records to other
individuals and entities within the Department of Corrections without his
authorization. The Court screened this Complaint and found that it did not state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court afforded Dean an opportunity
1
to file an amended Complaint by October 20, 2017. Dean did not file an amended
Complaint.
The Court entered Findings and Recommendations on this matter on
November 9, 2017. Dean moved for an extension of time to prosecute this case on
November 20, 2017. The Court withdrew its Findings and Recommendations and
allowed Dean until January 19, 2018, to file his amended Complaint. Dean has not
filed an amended Complaint.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on February 9, 2018. (Doc. 17.) Neither party
filed objections. When a party makes no objections, the Court need not review de
novo the proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149-52 (1986). This Court will review Judge Lynch’s Findings and
Recommendations, however, for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).
The Ninth Circuit has determined that prisoners do not possess a
constitutionally protected expectation of privacy in prison medical records when
the state possesses a “legitimate penological interest in access to them.” Seaton v.
Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 2010). Practical management of
rehabilitative programs may require access to the medical records to determine if
2
the prisoner possesses the ability to comply with the rehabilitative program. Id. at
535.
Judge Lynch determined that Dean advanced cursory allegations that
Defendants violated his right to privacy in his medical records. (Doc. 6 at 4.) Judge
Lynch determined that the dissemination of Dean’s medical records occurred in
relation to his request for admittance to a DOC program of rehabilitation. Id. Judge
Lynch further determined that Dean’s Complaint does not sufficiently allege that
the disclosure of his medical records bore no connection to a legitimate
penological objective of the DOC during his incarceration. Id. at 5.
The Court has reviewed Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations for
clear error. The Court finds no error in Judge Lynch’s Findings and
Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 17), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS ORDERED that matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a federal
claim.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter and enter
judgment in favor of Defendants pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
3
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall have the docket reflect that
pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that any
appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. The record makes clear
that the Complaint is frivolous as it lacks arguable substance in law or fact.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall have the docket
reflect that this dismissal counts as a strike pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
because Dean failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
DATED this 28th day of February, 2018.
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?