Chandler v. Williams et al

Filing 119

Opinion and Order - I ADOPT the Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations (doc. # 111). Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment 66 is GRANTED as to Claims II, IV and V, and defendants Geer and Clark are dismissed. Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Claims I and III, with leave to renew the motions after completion of discovery. Signed on 3/7/2011 by Judge Garr M. King. (mja)

Chandler v. Williams et al

Doc. 119

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION DAVID GEORGE CHANDLER, Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER vs. MAX WILLIAMS, Director Oregon Department of Corrections; R. COURSEY, Acting Superintendent Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution; DON MILLS, Superintendent TRCI, until recently, super at EOCI; RANDY GEER, Chief of Inmate Services Oregon Department of Corrections; R. MCGRAW, Transitional Services Manager at EOCI; GEORGIANNA EMERY, employed as institutional counselor at EOCI, Defendants. David George Chandler #14387170 Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution 2500 Westgate Pendleton, OR 97801-9699 Pro Se Plaintiff Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Civil Case No. 08-962-ST

Dockets.Justia.com

John R. Kroger Attorney General Kristin A. Winges-Yanez Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 Attorneys for Defendants

KING, Judge: The Honorable Janice Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on December 21, 2010. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Decisions on dispositive issues under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) are reviewed de novo. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir. 1991). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendants object to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that there was a genuine issue of material fact on whether defendants had responded reasonably to a substantial risk of serious harm to a group of inmates, and therefore that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment in their favor. I have considered defendants' objections and given the Findings and Recommendation de novo review, and find no legal error or clearly erroneous factual findings. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations (doc. # 111). Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. # 66) is GRANTED as to Claims II, IV and V, and

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

defendants Geer and Clark are dismissed. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Claims I and III, with leave to renew the motions after completion of discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 7th day of March, 2011.

/s/ Garr M. King Garr M. King United States District Judge

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER