Warner v. Curry et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full; denying 6 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 11/14/2017. Mailed to Warner (TAG)

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

DANNY LEE WARNER,

NOV 1 4 2017
Clerk, U.S Oiltrict Court
District Of Montane
Missoula

CV 17-104-M-DLC-JCL

Plaintiff,
ORDER
vs.
CHUCK CURRY, JENNIFER ROOT,
JAMES DUSING, TAMMY BOWEN,
SGT. SCHUELEN, and CBM
MANAGED SERVICES,
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and
Recommendations in this case on August 29, 2017, recommending that Plaintiff
Danny Lee Warner's ("Warner") motion for injunctive relief and motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction be denied. W amer timely
filed objections to the findings and recommendations. Consequently, Warner is
entitled to de novo review of those findings and recommendations to which he
specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b )(1 )(C). This Court reviews for clear error
those findings and recommendations to which no party objects. See McDonnell

Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir.

-1-

1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error exists ifthe Court is
left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."
United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

Judge Lynch concluded, and this Court agrees, that Warner's motion for
injunctive relief is without merit. Warner's objection fails to present any new
evidence and reiterates the same facts and arguments already made and properly
rejected by Judge Lynch. A preliminary injunction will not be granted unless
the plaintiff can establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that
he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the
balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public
interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20
(2008). While Warner's objection states that he is in desperate need of a pair of
prescription eyeglasses, he does not present any evidence related to this need.
(Doc. 9 at 1.) The attached grievance forms only pertain to his complaints of
moldy food, rotten milk, and raw eggs, and these grievances were resolved by the
Flathead County Detention Center. (Doc. 9-1.) Thus, Warner has not plausibly
demonstrated the four factors for a Fourteenth Amendment claim for denial of
medical treatment. Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015).
Consequently, no injunctive relief is warranted.
-2-

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 7) are ADOPTED IN FULL. Warner's motion for
injunctive relief as contained in his Complaint (Doc. 2 at 7-8) and motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive (Doc. 6) are DENIED.

-Kt

DATED this 11._ day ofNovember, 2017.

'

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge
United States District Court

-3-