Gould v. State of North Dakota et al

Filing 81

ORDER by Judge Daniel L. Hovland ADOPTING 80 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting 64 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 77 Request for Subpoena; finding as moot 79 Amended Request for Subpoena.(JM) Distributed on 4/15/2016. (mk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Isaac T.L. Gould, Sr.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
)
AND RECOMMENDATION
vs.
)
)
Case No. 4:14-cv-18
Williams County, Sheriff Scott Busching, )
and Lieutenant Royce Crone,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
The Plaintiff, Isaac Gould, is currently an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary in
Bismarck, North Dakota. However, at the time that Gould initiated this action, he was a pretrial
detainee at the Williams County Correctional Center (“WCCC”) in Williston, North Dakota. In
February 2014, Gould initiated a pro se civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
claims of federal constitutional violations against the State of North Dakota, the WCCC, and
Fairlight Medical Center in Williston. See Docket No. 6. After an initial screening which
concluded that Gould should not be permitted to proceed against the named parties, Gould filed
an amended complaint naming new parties. See Docket Nos. 12 and 14. Gould’s complaint
alleges the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and Gould was
denied necessary medical care. On August 3, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking to dismiss all of Gould’s claims. See Docket No. 64. On February 12, 2016,
Gould requested a subpoena for his medical file. See Docket No. 77. On February 26, 2016,
Gould filed an amended request for a subpoena of his medical file. See Docket No. 79.
On March 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be
granted, Gould’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and Gould’s request and amended request
1 

for a subpoena be denied as moot. See Docket No. 80. The parties were given fourteen days to
file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed.
The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Miller’s Report and Recommendation, the relevant
case law, and the entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 80) in its entirety
and ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 64) shall be GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff’s complaint shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. Plaintiff’s request and amended request for a subpoena (Docket Nos. 77 and 79) are
FOUND MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2016.
/s/ Daniel L. Hovland
Daniel L. Hovland, District Judge
United States District Court 

2