Downey v. Snohomish County Sheriffs Office et al

Filing 151

ORDER ADOPTING 147 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 112 ) is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Dylan Downey, Prisoner ID: 851130) (TH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 DYLAN JAMES DOWNEY, 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 13 ORDER v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al., Defendants. 14 15 CASE NO. C17-1024-JCC This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 149) to the Report 16 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler (Dkt. No. 147). Having 17 thoroughly considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the balance of the record, the Court 18 hereby ADOPTS the R&R for the reasons explained below. 19 A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s 20 report to which a party properly objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party 21 properly objects when he or she files “specific written objections” to the magistrate judge’s 22 report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In contrast, general objections, or summaries of arguments 23 previously presented, have the same effect as no objection at all, since the Court’s attention is not 24 focused on any specific issues for review. See Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Svcs., 932 25 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); Ali v. Grounds, 236 F. Supp. 3d 1241, 1249 (S.D. Cal. 2017). 26 Because this Court’s consideration of such “objections” would entail de novo review of the entire ORDER C17-1024-JCC PAGE - 1 1 report, rendering the referral to the magistrate judge useless, de novo review is not required when 2 a party fails to direct the Court to a specific error in the R&R. See Strawbridge v. Sugar 3 Mountain Resort, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 472, 475 (W.D.N.C. 2003). 4 Plaintiff is a state prisoner previously confined in the Snohomish County Jail. He filed an 5 amended complaint alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act 6 (“ADA”) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). He also brought causes of action 7 arising under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983, 1985 and 1986. (Dkt. No. 19.) His claims relate to various 8 housing assignments within the jail and to the violation of a “keep separate” order involving a 9 fellow inmate. (See generally id.) Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. (Dkt. 10 No. 112.) 11 Judge Theiler recommends that the Court grant summary judgment to Defendants 12 because Plaintiff does not specifically assert any RA claims, he fails to establish the deliberate 13 indifference required for his ADA discrimination claims, his ADA retaliation claim was mooted 14 by his transfer from Snohomish County to the Washington Department of Corrections, and his 15 claims brought pursuant to sections 1983, 1985 and 1986 are either duplicative of his ADA 16 claims or fail to demonstrate the violation of a constitutional right. (Dkt. No. 147 at 9–25.) 17 Plaintiff filed objections to Judge Theiler’s R&R (Dkt. No. 149). Plaintiff fails to point to 18 specific legal error, either in Judge Theiler’s consideration of the evidence or in her application 19 of the law. (Id. at 1–4.) Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s objections are insufficient to 20 trigger de novo review of Judge Theiler’s R&R. 21 The Court, hereby ORDERS as follows: 22 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 147). 23 (2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 112) is GRANTED. 24 (3) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 25 (4) The Clerk is respectfully DIRECTED to send copies of this order to Plaintiff and to 26 Judge Theiler. ORDER C17-1024-JCC PAGE - 2 1 2 DATED this 13th day of August 2018. A 3 4 5 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER C17-1024-JCC PAGE - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?