Sisney v. Kaemingk et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 92 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 105 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 106 Objection to Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 109 Objection to Report and Recommendation. Signed by U.S. District Judge Lawrence L. Piersol on 9/29/16. (DJP)

1^1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SEP 2 9

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
CLERK

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES E. SISNEY,
'

-

*
-

Plaintiff,

CIV 15-4069

s *

*
*

*

vs.

*

ORDER

DENNY KAEMINGK,in his

official capacity as the South Dakota
Secretary of Corrections;
DARIN YOUNG,in his official capacity

H=

as the Warden ofthe South Dakota

*

State Penitentiary;
SHARON REIMANN,in her official
capacity as an SDSP designated

*
*

Mailroom Officer; and
CRAIG MOUSED,in his official

*
*

capacity as an SDSP designated
Property Officer,

*
*

*

*

Defendants.

*
*

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation("R&R")of Magistrate

Judge Veronica Duffy dated May 25, 2016, Doc. 105. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Duffy
recommended that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs Motion for Summary

Judgment,Doc. 91,and grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion for Summaiy Judgment,
Doc. 67. All parties filed timely objections to the R&R. According to statute, the Court must

conduct a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's opinion to which specific

objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.P. 72(b). Given the breadth of the
objections, the Court conducted a de novo review of the entire R&R. The Court adopts the R&R

with certain exceptions that are stated below. Any objection thatis not specifically granted is denied.