Ward et al v. Estes et al

Filing 53

ORDER: Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation 48 is adopted in full. State Defendants' motion for summary judgment 16 and St. Charles' motion for summary judgment by joinder 34 are granted. Signed on 9/21/2018 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PATRICK WARD and BIANCA WARD
and AS NEXT BEST FRIEND R.W.,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00944-CL

v.

ORDER

KADI ESTES, CHARLEY TRACY,
JEANETTE GRANT, ST. CHARLES
HEALTH SYSTEM INC., dba ST.
CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER,
Defendants.
_____________________________
MCSHANE, Judge:
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48), and
the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiffs
filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, I have reviewed the file of this
case de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus.
Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). I find no error and conclude the report is
correct.
It is clear exigent circumstances justified the State of Oregon’s Department of Human
Services (“DHS”) child protective services workers’ decision to remove newborn R.W. from
1 –ORDER

Plaintiffs’ custody. Both Mr. and Mrs. Ward were under indictment for crimes related to child
abuse at the time of R.W.’s birth, and DHS had already taken custody of Mrs. Ward’s elder two
children from a previous relationship and placed them with their biological father. DHS placed
R.W. in protective custody due to the threat of abuse from both parents, and not because of the
presumptive positive methamphetamine test that Plaintiffs allege formed the basis for DHS’
jurisdiction.
In any event, the State Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they
reasonably believed their actions were lawful. See ORS 419B.150(1). Likewise, I agree with
Judge Clarke that Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact as to their
wrongful removal claims against Defendant St. Charles. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48) is adopted in full.
State Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) and St. Charles’ motion for
summary judgment by joinder (ECF No. 34) are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of September, 2018.

_______/s/ Michael J. McShane ________
Michael McShane
United States District Judge

2 –ORDER