Adams v. Jones et al

Filing 184

ORDER ADOPTING 182 Report and Recommendation, GRANTING 172 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Don Sultmiller, Barbara Carswell, GRANTING 173 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Rickey W Moham, DeWayne Howell, Emma Watts, DENYING 175 Motion for Judgment filed by Oler Adams, Jr, DENYING 176 Motion for Judgment filed by Oler Adams, Jr, DENYING 179 Motion for Order filed by Oler Adams, Jr. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 2/12/14. (llg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

OLER ADAMS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
-vsDON SUTMILLER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-10-920-F

ORDER
Before the court are the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin entered December 27, 2013 (doc. no. 182) and
plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation filed January 17,
2014 (doc. no. 183). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the court reviews the
Report and Recommendation de novo in light of plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff’s seven-page objection is overwhelmingly conclusory in nature. For
example, plaintiff states that he “claims that the defendants Motion for Summary
Judgment is not supported and must be rejected.” Objection at p. 1. Yet plaintiff does
not even state to which defendants’ motion he is referring or specify how it is
unsupported. He also claims the Report and Recommendation must be rejected
because the magistrate judge “erred in denying plaintiff’s Motion for an independent
physical examination,” id. at p. 2, but plaintiff does not explain how the denial of that
motion had any impact on the Report and Recommendation. Another example of
plaintiff’s conclusory objections is that “the defendants have not presented a sufficient
Motion for Summary Judgment that would cause a judgment being rule [sic] in their

favor.” Id. at p. 3. The court need not address such conclusory objections. Indeed,
it is virtually impossible to do so. Rather, the court will review the Report and
Recommendation de novo in light of the record to determine whether it concurs in the
magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Plaintiff does make three objections that are not completely conclusory and are
ascertainable. The court addresses these. First, he states that defendant Sutmiller was
not entitled to file a second motion for summary judgment pursuant to LCvR 56.1.
Id. at 2. However, defendant Sutmiller only filed one motion for summary judgment,
doc. no. 172.
Secondly, plaintiff seemingly argues that defendants Sutmiller and Carswell are
liable under a theory of supervisory liability. Objection at p. 4. The court presumes
that this argument is directed to plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim for a deprivation
of medical care because defendant Carswell is not a defendant on plaintiff’s due
process claim for denial of medical care. To establish supervisory liability for a
subordinate’s violation of a constitutional right, a plaintiff must demonstrate 1)
personal involvement by the supervisor; 2) causation; and 3) a culpable state of mind
by the supervisor. Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Department, 717 F.3d
760, 766 (10th Cir. 2013). To show causation, the plaintiff must show that “‘the
defendant set in motion a series of events that the defendant knew or reasonably
should have known would cause others to deprive the plaintiff of [his] constitutional
rights.’” Id. at 768, quoting Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1195 (10th Cir.
2010) (internal quotation omitted). Plaintiff has failed to show that defendants
Sutmiller and Carswell so acted. Moreover, the magistrate judge correctly found that
there was no “credible evidence of a culpable state of mind on the part of Defendant
Sutmiller or Defendant Carswell.” Report and Recommendation at p. 24. This court
agrees.
2

Plaintiff’s final objection that is comprehendible is “although Defendant Watts
returned the grievances back as not being filed properly, she did not offer any further
instructions on what could or should be done next, so it was at that point that plaintiff
was deprived of an administrative remedy.” Objection at p. 6. But it is implicit in
defendant Watts’s interoffice memorandum attached to plaintiff’s objection that
plaintiff should resubmit his grievance forms with the Requests to Staff attached to
them. Plaintiff’s objection in this regard is without merit.
The court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the
magistrate judge in light of the record herein and fully concurs in all the findings,
conclusions and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Therefore, the Report and
Recommendation (doc. no. 182) is ADOPTED; defendants’ motions for summary
judgment (doc. nos. 172 & 173) are GRANTED; and plaintiff’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings (doc. nos. 175, 176, 178 & 179) is DENIED.
DATED February 12, 2014.

10-920p007.wpd

3