Bell v. Voight et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 69 Report and Recommendation; denying 72 Objection to Report and Recommendation.; denying 73 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 9/9/15. (DJP)

FILED
SEP 0 9 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

~~

SOUTHERN DIVISION

******************************************************************************
SHANE DOUGLAS BELL,
Plaintiff,
V.

WILLIAM VOIGHT, Corrections Officer
at South Dakota State Penitentiary,
individual and official capacity;
JEREMY WENDLING, Corrections
Officer Sgt. at South Dakota State
Penitentiary, individual and official capacity;
SAMUEL YOST, Corrections Officer, Cpl.
at South Dakota State Penitentiary,
individual and official capacity;
JESSICA COOK, Unit Manager at South
Dakota State Penitentiary,
individual and official capacity;
JOHN DOE #1, Corrections Officer
at South Dakota State Penitentiary,
individual and official capacity;
DARIN YOUNG, Warden at
South Dakota State Penitentiary,
individual and official capacity;
JOHN DOE #2, Corrections Officer
at South Dakota State Penitentiary,
individual and official capacity;
Defendants.

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

CIV. 14-4111

ORDER

******************************************************************************
The Court has conducted a de novo review of this file. Magistrate Judge Duffy filed a Report
and Recommendation on this case on July 23, 2015, recommending that Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment be granted in its entirety and each of Plaintiff Shane Bell's claims be dismissed
with prejudice. PlaintiffBell timely objected to the Report and Recommendation on August 5, 2015.

On September 8, 2015 Plaintiff Bell filed a Motion to Amend Complaint with Court's Permission.

Plaintiff complains that he has been precluded to conduct discovery, primarily to document
that he was not provided medical care on the date of the incident that resulted in Plaintiff's injury on
December 3, 2013. For purposes of ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment and for the Report
and Recommendation, it has been assumed by Magistrate Judge Duffy and by this Court that Plaintiff
was not provided medical care on December 3, 2013. Accordingly, even if discovery would confirm
that no medical care was provided on December 3, 2013, that proof would be no more favorable for
Plaintiff that what the Magistrate Judge and this Court have already assumed. Accordingly, there is
no basis to deny the Summary Judgment request and to direct that discovery proceed before ruling
on the Summary Judgment Motion.

There are some disputed facts in this case, but there is no genuine issue of material disputed
fact. In addition, Magistrate Judge Duffy and this Court have viewed the facts, and inferences from
those facts, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

To begin with, the Court agrees that Plaintiff Bell had a serious medical need with the "mildly
displaced fracture of the left zygomatic arch. Remaining facial bones appear intact." Exhibit 9 to
Document 45-15, the radiography report of Dr. Kurt Schellhas, M.D.

Although Plaintiff reiterates his positions in the Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, no new material is presented. Plaintiff submitted his own and prisoner Shawn
Runquist's Affidavits on August 5, 2015, in opposition to the Report and Recommendation. Neither
of those Affidavits change the considerations which were before Magistrate Judge Duffy and which
are now before this Court.

Accordingly, this Court denies the Objections to the Report and Recommendation and adopts
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

2

Plaintiff also filed his Motion to Amend Complaint on September 8, 2015. The allegations
proposed would not alter this Court's ruling, and accordingly to allow the amendment would be a
futility, and the request to amend the Complaint is denied. Accordingly.
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, Doc. 69, is
ADOPTED by the Court, and Plaintiffs Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, Doc. 72, are DENIED.

2.

That Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 44, is GRANTED.

3.

That Plaintiffs Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

4.

That Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, Doc. 73, is DENIED.

Dated this

q~day of September, 2015.

United States District Judge
ATTEST:
JOE HAAS,
By

C~.rk

rhh@~
Deputy

3