Stewart v. Mr. Watts
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 50 in full; granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Any appeal of this decision would not be taken in good faith. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 6/1/2016. Mailed to Stewart. (TAG, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
CCC CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL
TRANSPORT OFFICER MR. WATTS,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES
United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered Findings and
Recommendations in this matter on May 4, 2016. (Doc. 50.) Stewart timely filed
objections the Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations on May 14, 2016.
(Doc. 51.) The Court reviews de novo Findings and Recommendations to which
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court will review for clear error
the portions of the findings and recommendations to which no party specifically
objected. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach. Inc., 656 F.2d
1309, 1313 (9th Cir.1981). Where a party’s objections, however, constitute
perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a
rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original response, the Court will
review the applicable portions of the findings and recommendations for clear error.
Rosling v. Kirkegard, 2014 WL 693315 *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (internal
Stewart alleges that on October 4, 2013, Officer Watts threw Stewart down
and injured him as he entered a prison transport van. (Doc. 4.) Watts filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment on the basis that Steward has failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies within the prison before filing suit in this Court as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Judge
Johnston recommends that this Court grant Watts’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. Judge Johnston accordingly denied Stewart’s motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint. (Doc. 50 at 1.)
Judge Johnston found it undisputed that CCC possesses an Inmate Grievance
Program. Judge Johnston also found that Stewart was aware of the program and
that he failed to file a timely grievance regarding the October 4, 2013, incident. As
such, Stewart has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court agrees
with Judge Johnston’s recommendation that the Court should grant Defendant
Watts’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Stewart objects generally to the Findings and Recommendations. These
objections simply restate, however, the allegations of the Amended Complaint, the
Response/Objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and all supplemental
objections. No clear error exists in any of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 50) is ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Watts’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is
GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to close the case and enter judgment in favor of Defendant
pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to have the docket reflect that the Court
certifies 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. No reasonable person could suppose an appeal would have merit.
DATED this 1st day of June, 2016.
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?