Eastman v. Swanson et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 in full. Eastman's claims regarding the opening of court mail and threatening verbal and sexual harassment, except as to Sgt. Gurstein, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Mike Mahoney, Ross Swanson, Myron Beeson, Ben Bouley, Carla Stmtzel, Cody Sentell, Paul Lucier, Dr. Shaack, and the mailroom staff are dismissed. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 7/11/2012. Mailed to Eastman. (TAG, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

HELENA DIVISION

FRANKLIN CORBIN
EASTMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROSS SWANSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)

)

)

ORDER

---------------------)
Franklin Eastman is a prisoner proceeding pro se. He raises several claims
against personnel at the Montana State Prison. Those claims are: (I) interference
with and reading legal and court mail, (2) denial ofmental health care, (3) verbal
and sexual harassment, (4) being labeled as a snitch, and (5) retaliation.
Magistrate Judge Strong recommends dismissing with prejudice Eastman's
claims of opening court mail and verbal and sexual harassment, except as to Sgt.
Gurstein. He also recommends that Mike Mahoney, Ross Swanson, Myron
Beeson, Ben Bouley, Sgt. Strutzel, Cody Sentell, Paul Lucier, Dr. Shaack, and
mailroom staffbe dismissed. But he ordered that Eastman's claims of opening
legal mail, interfering with obtaining mental health care, harassment by Sgt.
Gurstein, and being labeled a snitch be served on Mazzone, Sgt. Moyotte, Sgt.
1

Fetters, Sgt. Miller, Sgt. Gurstein, Denice Deyott, and Sgt. Pasha.
Eastman is entitled to a de novo review of the specified findings or
recommendations to which he timely objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I). But the
portions of Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation not specifically
objected to are reviewed for clear error. McDonnell Douglas corp. v. Commodore

Bus. Mach., Inc., 656F.2d 1309,1313 (9thCir. 1981). General, conclusory
objections do not warrant de novo review. See Cox v. City o/Charleston,

s.c., 250

F. Supp. 2d 582, 585 (D. S.C. 2003).
Here, Eastman timely filed his objections to Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendation. But his objections are general and conclusory. He merely
asserts that Lucier, Bouley, Sgt. Strutzel, Swanson, Beeson, and Dr. Shaack should
not be dismissed.! His objections do not warrant a de novo review. The Court
therefore reviews Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendation for clear error.
The Court finds no clear error in Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendation and adopts them in full. First, unlike legal mail, court mail is not
protected. Second, Eastman's claims of threatening verbal and sexual harassment
are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Freeman v. Arpaio, 125 F.3d 732,738
(9th Cir. 1997).

1

Eastman concedes that Sentell and Mahoney should be dismissed.
2

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Strong's Findings
and Recommendation (doc. 12) in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Frank Eastman's claims regarding the
opening of court mail and threatening verbal and sexual harassment, except as to
Sgt. Gurstein, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mike Mahoney, Ross Swanson, Myron
Beeson, Ben Bouley, Carla Stmtzel, Cody Sentell, Paul Lucier, Dr. Shaack, and
the mailroom staff are dismissed.
Dated this

llJ;iay of July 2012.
,,/

Hoy, District Judge
istrict Court

3