Gaede v. Podrebarac et al

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland granting 24 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendants; adopting 28 Report and Recommendations. (QF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
Dennis James Gaede,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
)
AND RECOMMENDATION
vs.
)
)
Case No. 1:10-cv-070
James T. Podrebarac, Leann Bertsch,
)
Warren Emmer, Tim Schuetzle,
)
and Kathy Bachmeier,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________

On November 1, 2011, the defendants moved for summary judgment. See Docket No. 24.
On November 30, 2011, Plaintiff Dennis Gaede filed a brief in opposition to the motion. See Docket
No. 26. On December 14, 2011, the defendants filed a reply brief. See Docket No. 27.
On December 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr., issued a “Report and
Recommendation.” See Docket No. 28. Judge Miller concluded the following: (1) the defendants
are all state employees and therefore have immunity from any claims for damages under the
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) the defendants in their individual
capacity have qualified immunity from any claims for damages because there was no clearly
established right to dental care beyond tooth extraction under the Eighth Amendment of the United
States Constitution; and (3) no triable issues remained related to Gaede’s Eighth Amendment claim
for injunctive relief. Judge Miller recommended “that defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 24) be GRANTED and that Gaede’s complaint be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
See Docket No. 28, p. 16.

On January 18, 2012, Gaede filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. See
Docket No. 29.

Gaede challenges Judge Miller’s authority to issue the Report and

Recommendation, argues that his Complaint sets forth a prima facie case that the defendants
violated Eighth Amendment, that the defendants are not entitled to immunity, and requested the
Court deny the defendants’ motion and permit the case to proceed to a jury trial.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), magistrate judges have
authority to issue reports and recommendations for dispositive motions relating to prisoner claims
challenging conditions of confinement, such as civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See
Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1045 n.1 (8th Cir. 1989) (explaining “conditions of confinement”
has been interpreted to include nearly all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims related to health, safety, or
punishment); Hobbs v. Lockhart, 46 F.3d 864, 867 (8th Cir. 1995) (explaining “magistrate judges
are authorized [in a prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim] to conduct hearings . . . and to submit to the
district court proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommendations for the
disposition of the case.”); see also D.N.D. Civ. L. R. 72.1(B)(4). The district judge reviews the
Report and Recommendation and has the discretion to adopt, reject, or modify the proposed finding
and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D.N.D. Civ. L. R.
72.1(D)(3). The United States Supreme Court has found that this procedure complies with Article
III of the United States Constitution. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681-84 (1980).
Therefore, Judge Miller acted in accordance with the law and within his authority as magistrate
judge when he issued the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, relevant case law, and
the entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive. Accordingly, the

2

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 28) in its entirety; GRANTS the
defendants’ “Motion for Summary Judgment” (Docket No. 24); and DISMISSES WITH
PREJUDICE the plaintiff’s complaint (Docket No. 5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2012.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court

3