Reyna v. Weber et al

Filing 176

ORDER granting 75 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 157 Motion for Default Judgment; denying 162 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 116 Report and Recommendation and 168 Report and Recommendation; overruling 174 Objection to Report and Recommendation. Signed by U.S. District Judge Roberto A. Lange on 6/12/14. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LOREN REYNA,
a/k/a LOREN TWO BULLS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DARIN YOUNG, Warden, South Dakota
State Penitentiary; BOB DOOLEY, Director
of Prison Operations; DENNY
KAEMINGK, Cabinet Secretary, Secretary
of Corrections, Department of Corrections;
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
CORRECTIONAL MENTAL HEALTH
CARE; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE;
LEWIS & CLARK BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SERVICES;
Defendants.

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIV

FILED
JUN 12 2014

11-4044-RA~~

ORDER ADOPTING

REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS

AND RULING ON CERTAIN

MOTIONS AND OBJECTIONS

Plaintiff Loren Reyna a/kIa Loren Two Bulls (Reyna) filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against certain Defendants.! Doc. 1. This Court has referred certain
motions to Magistrate Judge John E. Simko in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Doc. 45. Judge Simko entered a previous Report and Recommendation, Doc. 116, on June 29,
2012, which recommended that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 75, be granted

IThrough the course of this case, certain named defendants have been substituted. For
instance, in February of2013, Bob Dooley was named the director of Prisons Operations for the
South Dakota Department of Corrections; he originally was named as the warden of Mike Durfee
State Prison. In May of 2013, Darin Young became the warden of the South Dakota State
Penitentiary, thereby replacing the previously named defendant and the now-retired Douglas Weber.
In May of 2011, Denny Kaemingk became the Secretary of Corrections, thereby replacing the
previously named defendant Tim Reisch. These defendants have been substituted under Rule 25(d)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

and that certain motions filed by Reyna be denied. Doc. 116 at 35. This Court adopted the Report
and Recommendation, granted summary judgment to the Defendants, and denied other motions
of Reyna. Doc. 126; Doc. 128. In considering the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
at that time, Judge Simko and in tum this Court relied in part upon the medical records of Reyna.
The Defendants had produced and filed the medical records under seal. Doc. 111. Unbeknownst
to this Court, those medical records were not furnished to Reyna at that time.
Reyna appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded
the matter to this Court for reconsideration after Reyna was allowed access to his medical records.
Doc. 147. Reyna has had access to those records. Judge Simko, on August 8, 2013, filed an order
requiring the Defendants to provide the medical records to Reyna. Doc. 153. Defendants filed a
Certificate ofCompliance with the Court's order, Doc. 155, on August 13,2013. Reyna, however,
filed a Motion for Judgment of Default, Doc. 157, on August 30, 2013, reporting that he had still
not received those medical records. Defendants opposed the motion, noting that they had provided
the medical records and produced information showing that those medical records in fact had been
sent to Reyna. Doc. 159. Subsequent filings by Reyna indicate that he in fact received those
medical records. See Doc. 160; Doc. 164.
There presently is pending before this Court reconsideration of Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment, Doc. 75; Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. 157; Plaintiff's Cross
Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 162; the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Simko, Doc. 168; and Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 174.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I), "when a party objects to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge concerning a dispositive matter, ' [a] judge of the court shall make a de novo

2

detennination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made.'" United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Likewise, under Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a "district judge must detennine de novo any part ofthe magistrate judge's disposition
that has been properly objected to." In order to trigger de novo review, objections must be specific
and timely. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357-58 (8th Cir. 1990).
The Report and Recommendation of Judge Simko was filed on March 19, 2014, and
contained notice to Reyna that he had fourteen days within which to file written objections. Doc.
168 at 10. On March 31, 2014, Reyna filed a Motion to Extend Deadline, Doc. 169, which this
Court granted enlarging Reyna's deadline to April 30, 2014. Doc. 170. On May 1,2014, Reyna
filed another motion for an extension in time to submit objections to the Report and
Recommendation. Doc. 172. This Court again accommodated Reyna's request and granted a
further extension to May 30, 2014. Doc. 173. On June 2,2014, Reyna filed what he entitled a
"Broad Objection" to the Report and Recommendation. Doc. 174. The envelope containing Doc.
174 appears to have been mailed on May 30, 2014. This Court deems Reyna's "Broad Objection"
to be timely filed.
Despite the accommodations provided to Reyna by this Court to enlarge the time for his
objections to the Report and Recommendation, Reyna has not filed what could be considered a
"specific" objection, but rather a generalized assault on how he feels that he has been treated by
this Court. Reyna accuses this Court of being "sneaky and cowardize [sic] by keeping Plaintiff
Reyna's medical records from him." Doc. 174 at 1. Reyna's objection uses a profanity and opines
that "this Court is just mad they [sic] were proven wrong to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

3

Eighth Circuit being that Reyna showed that the medical records which are evidence were being
tampered with and being withheld from him." Doc. 174 at 2-3. Reyna accuses this Court of
considering his case to be "a game," and desires a jury trial of his claims. Doc. 174 at 2, 4.
Reyna's "Broad Objection" does not raise any specific legal or factual challenge to the Report and
Recommendation, and thus does not trigger entitlement to de novo review. Thompson, 897 F.2d
at 358. Nevertheless, and in part mindful ofthe fact that Reyna is pro se and has psychiatric issues,
this Court conducted a de novo review of both the prior Report and Recommendation, Doc. 116,
and the most recent Report and Recommendation. Doc. 168.
The prior Report and Recommendation, Doc. 116, contains a more extensive evaluation
of Reyna's claims and his psychiatric treatment while in custody of South Dakota officials. The
more recent Report and Recommendation, Doc. 168, focuses on additional and more recent claims
made by Reyna. In short, Reyna asserts that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
Reyna's serious psychiatric conditions and that the Defendants thereby violated Reyna's
constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
Reyna certainly has disagreement with changes that have been made in his medication and the level
of attention to his psychiatric needs. However, prisoners "do not have a constitutional right to any
particular type oftreatment." Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996). "Prison officials do
not violate the Eighth Amendment when, in the exercise oftheir professional judgment, they refuse
to implement a prisoner's requested course oftreatment. " Id. A difference of opinion between a
prisoner and medical providers at the institution over the course of treatment does not rise to the
level of a constitutional violation. Randall v. Wyrick, 642 F.2d 304, 308 (8th Cir. 1981).

4

This Court has reviewed not only the two most recent Reports and Recommendations, but
also the materials on file in the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing System (CM/ECF) for
this case. Rather than duplicating the content of those two Reports and Recommendations,
particularly in light of the absence of a specific objection from Reyna, this Court will adopt Judge
Simko's analysis in his Reports and Recommendations. Therefore, for good cause, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, Doc. 116, and the Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 168, are adopted. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, Doc. 157, is denied. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 162, is denied. It
is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Broad Objection," Doc. 174, to the Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 168, is overruled. It is finally
ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc.
75, is granted.
II.

Dated June~, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

5