Harris v. Hill

Filing 75

ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation. 65 Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 48 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 57 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen the Case 68 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Acceptance of Misplaced Documents 69 ; Denying Motion to Correct Errors 71 ; Denying Motion to Deny Acceptance of Defense Response 73 . Signed on 1/11/10 by Judge Ancer L. Haggerty. (mkk)

FILErl0 J~ 1114:53JSJ;-tV

UNITED STATES DISTRICT C O U R T F O R T H E DISTRICT OF OREGON

D E A N PHILIP H A R R I S , Plaintiff, C i v i l No. 0 7 - 1 6 5 4 - S T Portland D i v i s i o n ORDER

v.
DR. VAlRGO, H A R D Y MYERS; D R . S T E V E S H E L D O N ; DR. G A R T H GLICK; J O H N A N D J A N E D O E S , Defendants.

H A G G E R T Y , D i s t r i c t Judge: M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e S t e w a r t i s s u e d a F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n [65] i n t h i s a c t i o n . T h e Magistrate Judge recommended that defendants' Motion for S u m m a r y Judgment [48] should b e granted, p l a i n t i f f s Motion for Summary Judgment [57] should b e denied, and this case should b e d i s m i s s e d w i t h prejudice. P l a i n t i f f h a s f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s [ 7 0 ] , a n d four r e l a t e d m o t i o n s : M o t i o n t o r e - O p e n C a s e because o f N e w Evidence [68]; Motion for Acceptance o f Misplaced Documents [69]; Motion to Correct Errors [71]; a n d Motion to D e n y Acceptance o f Defense Response [73]. W h e n a party o b j e c t s t p a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e Magistrate J u d g e ' s Findings a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h e district c o u r t O R D E R -- 1

must m a k e a de novo determination o f that portion o f the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(O(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313
( 9 t h C i t . 1981). P l a i n t i f f f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s i n a t i m e l y m a n n e r . T h e c o u r t h a s g i v e n t h e f i l e o f t h i s case a de novo review, a n d h a s also carefully evaluated the Magistrate Judge's Findings a n d R e c o n u p e n d a t i o n s , p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n s , a n d t h e r e c o r d o f t h e case. T h e F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n i s a d o p t e d i n i t s entirety. P l a i n t i f f ' s s u p p l e m e n t a l m o t i o n s h a v e a l s o b e e n r e f e r r e d to t h i s c o u r t , a n d h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d . T h o s e m o t i o n s a r e d e n i e d .

ANALYSIS
T h e facts o f t h e c a s e , a n d t h e l e g a l s t a n d a r d s t h a t a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i s s u e s a d v a n c e d , are p r e s ˘ n t e d t h o r o u g h l y i n t h e s o u n d F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n , a n d n e e d n o t b e r e p e a t e d

i n detail. A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g a c a r e f u l r e v i e w o f t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d , t h i s c o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t n o
r e a s o n a b l e f a c t - f i n d e r c o u l d c o n c l u d e t h a t d e f e n d a n t s w e r e d e l i b e r a t e l y i n d i f f e r e n t to p l a i n t i f f ' s s e r i o u s m e d i c a l n e e d s i n v i o l a t i o n o f h i s E i g h t h A m e n d m e n t rights. P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s n o g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l fact c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n s i v e , c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y s u f f i c i e n t m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t h e has received. T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s m e d i c a l n e e d s w e r e ignored. A l t h o u g h p l a i n t i f f d i s a g r e e s w i t h t h e m e d i c a l a s s e s s m e n t s a n d treatments provided him, his disagreements fail to establish a n y actionable claims against defendants. Similarly, plaintiff's supplemental motions are without merit. His request to submit a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f m s b a c k s u r g e r y is d e n i e d b e c a u s e s u c h e v i d e n c e is i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r p l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t e d v i a b l e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l claims against
defend~ts

for the medical care provided. Plaintiff's request to accept misplaced documents is

denied a,s moot. T h e documents identified b y p l a i n t i f f i n his motion h a v e b e e n filed and

O R D E R -- 2

considered b y this court. P l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n to correct errors is denied as moot. This court h a s considered t h e s i x paragraphs p r e s e n t e d b y p l a i n t i f f i n s u p p o r t o f this m o t i o n a n d h a s found t h e m o t i o n t o b e w i t h o u t merit. Finally, p l a i n t i f f s m o t i o n t h a t t h e c o u r t d i s r e g a r d d e f e n d a n t s ' Response to p l a i n t i f f s s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n because o f alleged errors in t h e "case caption" i s denied.

CONCJ,.USION
T h e M a g i s t r a t e J u d g e ' s F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n [65] i n t h i s a c t i o n i s a d o p t e d .
Defend~ts' M o t i o n

for S u m m a r y Judgment [48] is granted, p l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n for S u m m a r y

Judgment [57] is denied, and this case is dismissed w i t h prejudice. F l a i n t i f f s M o t i o n to re-Open C a s e b e c a u s e o f N e w Evidence [68]; Motion for A c c e p t $ 1 c e o f M i s p l a c e d D o c u m e n t s [69]; M o t i o n t o C o r r e c t E r r o r s [ 7 1 ] ; a n d M o t i o n t o D e n y A c c e p t a n c e o f D e f e n s e R e s p o n s e [73] h a v e b e e n e v a l u a t e d a n d a r e d e n i e d . IT IS S O ORDERED. D a t e d this

J l d a y o f January, 2 0 1 0 .

tU

b4--,,,Łyc.U-fJAloA.-nQ..-I« o- !-i
LUlL

~

U n i t e d States D i s t r i c t J u d g e

O R D E R -- 3