Hoard v. Snake River Correctional Institution et al

Filing 76

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation 72 . Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants Motion 57 for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs (1) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Nooth , (2) claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution against Defendant Taylor, (3) state common-law and constitutional claims, and (4) request for declaratory relief. The Court DENIES Defendants Motion as to (1) Plaintiffs Eig hth Amendment claims against Defendants Hartman, Ortega, Saldivar, and Brown, and (2) Plaintiffs request for punitive damages. Finally, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants Motion as to the availability of damages for Plaintiffs official-capacity claims. (Copy mailed to plaintiff.) Signed on 1/12/2016 by Judge Anna J. Brown. (sm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SEAN COLBY HOARD,
Plaintiff,

2:13-cv-02161-AC
ORDER

v.
JERIAL HARTMAN, WILLIAM
ORTEGA, ESPIRIDION SALDIVAR,
HAROLD BROWN, JAMES TAYLOR,
and MARK NOOTH,
Defendants.
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (#72) on December 4, 2015, in which he recommends
this Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion
(#57) for Summary Judgment.

Magistrate Judge Acosta specifically

recommended this Court grant summary judgment in favor of
Defendants on Plaintiff’s (1) claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against Defendant Nooth, (2) claim under the Fourteenth Amendment

1

- ORDER

of the United States Constitution against Defendant Taylor,
(3) state common-law and constitutional claims, and (4) request
for declaratory relief.

Magistrate Judge Acosta, however,

recommended this Court deny summary judgment as to
(1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Defendants
Hartman, Ortega, Saldivar, and Brown, and (2) Plaintiff’s request
for punitive damages.

In addition, Magistrate Judge Acosta

recommended this Court deny as moot Defendants’ Motion as to the
availability of damages for Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its
obligation to review the record de novo.
561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009).

See Dawson v. Marshall,

See also United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not
find any error.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and
Recommendation (#72).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

Motion (#57) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s (1) claims
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Nooth, (2) claim under
2

- ORDER

the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
against Defendant Taylor, (3) state common-law and constitutional
claims, and (4) request for declaratory relief.

The Court DENIES

Defendant’s Motion as to (1) Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims
against Defendants Hartman, Ortega, Saldivar, and Brown, and
(2) Plaintiff’s request for punitive damages.

Finally, the Court

DENIES as moot Defendants’ Motion as to the availability of
damages for Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 12th day of January, 2016.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

3

- ORDER