Henderson v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING 49 Supplemental Report and Recommendation, GRANTING 45 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Chad Miller, CM Shannon, CM Waters, Chief Hilligoss, Larry Cox, Corrections Corporation of America, Lieutenant Battles. Signed by Honorable Stephen P. Friot on 3/1/2018. (llg)

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

WILLIAM HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
-vsCORRECTIONS CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. CIV-17-48-F

ORDER
On January 9, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued a
Supplemental Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 49), recommending that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“second motion”) (doc. no. 45) be
granted and that judgment issue in favor of defendants and against plaintiff.
Magistrate Judge Purcell specifically determined that summary judgment should be
granted because plaintiff failed to complete the administrative grievance process
prior to filing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
Plaintiff

has

Recommendation.

timely

objected

to

the

Supplemental

Report

and

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court has

conducted a de novo review of the matter.
At the outset, the court rejects plaintiff’s argument that defendants’ second
motion should have been denied as being filed in violation of LCvR 56.1(a). In
declining to adopt Magistrate Judge Purcell’s Report and Recommendation (doc. no.
37) to the extent it recommended granting defendants’ first Motion for Summary
Judgment (“first motion”) (doc. no. 23), the court was not adjudicating defendants’

first motion in plaintiff’s favor. After Magistrate Judge Purcell issued the original
Report and Recommendation, the court granted plaintiff leave to file a response to
defendants’ first motion out of time. See, doc. no. 40. The court, in its order,
specifically advised that if plaintiff filed his response within the time prescribed, the
court would decline to adopt Magistrate Judge Purcell’s original Report and
Recommendation. See, id. at p. 3. It was the court’s intention for Magistrate Judge
Purcell to recommend a new ruling with respect to defendants’ first motion after
considering plaintiff’s out-of-time response.

However, unsure of the court’s

intention, Magistrate Judge Purcell instead entered an order establishing a new
deadline for filing dispositive motions. Defendants thereafter filed their second
motion raising the same failure to exhaust administrative remedies argument.
Plaintiff responded to the motion and defendants replied. Magistrate Judge Purcell
clearly acted within his discretion in permitting defendants to file another motion for
summary judgment. See, LCvR 56.1(a) (“Absent leave of court, each party may file
only one motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.”). Therefore, the court finds plaintiff’s
objection to defendants’ second motion as violating LCvR 56.1(a) is without merit.
In addition, the court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the court should not
accept Magistrate Judge Purcell’s recommended ruling because there are multiple
questions of material facts as to whether the administrative remedies at issue were
available. The court, having conducted its de novo review, concurs with the analysis
and recommended ruling of Magistrate Judge Purcell. The court need not repeat that
analysis here. The court specifically concludes that plaintiff has failed to proffer
sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the administrative
grievance process was not available to him or capable of use by him. The court
therefore accepts, adopts and affirms Magistrate Judge Purcell’s recommended
ruling.

2

Based upon the foregoing, the court ACCEPTS, ADOPTS and AFFIRMS
United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell’s Supplemental Report and
Recommendation, filed January 9, 2018 (doc. no. 49). Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (doc. no. 45) is GRANTED. Judgment shall issue forthwith.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of March, 2018.

17-0048p006.docx

3