Piekkola v. Jackley et al

Filing 77

ORDER granting 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 69 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 73 Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting 76 Report and Recommendation. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 9/1/2017. (JLS) (Main Document 77 replaced on 9/1/2017) (JLS).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MAX PIEKKOLA,

4:15-CV-04148-KES
Plaintiff, and

KARRI REYNOLDS,
vs.

Plaintiff Intervenor,

JOSH KLIMEK, Unit Manager, Mike
Durfee State Prison, individual and
official capacities;
TAMMY DEJONG, Unit Coordinator,
Mike Durfee State Prison, individual
and official capacities;
TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, Case Manager,
Mike Durfee State Prison, individual
and official capacities;
KELLY TJEERDSMA, Corporal, Mike
Durfee State Prison, individual and
official capacities;
DUSTIN TJEERDSMA, Correctional
Officer, Mike Durfee State Prison,
individual and official capacities;
LEE KAUFENBERG, Special Security
Captain, Mike Durfee State Prison,
individual and official capacities;
LYLE STOCK, Sergeant, Mike Durfee
State Prison, individual and official
capacities;
TAMMY DOYLE, Unit Manager at Mike
Durfee State Prison, in her individual
and official capacities; and
STEVE REYNOLDS, previous supervisor
of the automotive program, Mike Durfee
State Prison, individual and official
capacities,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AMENDED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, AND SECOND MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Max Piekkola, filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Karrie Reynolds was allowed to intervene as a party in interest. The case
was referred to Magistrate Judge Veronica Duffy under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for the purpose of conducting any necessary hearings, including
evidentiary hearings.
On August 17, 2017, the magistrate judge submitted her report and
recommended that defendants’ motion for summary judgment and amended
motion for summary judgment on the amended complaint be granted.
Neither Piekkola nor Reynolds responded to the motion for summary
judgment or the amended motion for summary judgment. Piekkola and
Reynolds were notified in the report and recommendation that they had 14
days to file objections to the report. Even though no objections were filed
that would require de novo review under Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356
(8th Cir. 1990), the court reviewed the matter de novo and finds that the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted in full. Therefore,
it is
ORDERED that:
1.

The report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Docket

76) is adopted in full.
2.

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docket 44),

amended motion for summary judgment (Docket 69) and second motion for

2

summary judgment (Docket 73) are granted. Judgment of dismissal with
prejudice will be entered in favor of defendants.
Dated September 1, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier

KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3