Garrott v. Wright et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H Settle re 19 Motion for Relief filed by Rodney L Garrott, 22 Motion for Reconsideration filed by Rodney L Garrott. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

RODNEY L. GARROTT,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
Case No. C10-5417BHS
v.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

EARL WRIGHT, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of

16

the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 17), Plaintiff

17

Rodney Garrott’s (“Garrott”) motion for an extension of time (Dkt. 19), and Garrott’s

18

motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 22). The Court has considered the R&R, Garrott’s

19

motions, and the remainder of the file and hereby adopts the R&R and dismisses this action.

20

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

21

On July 9, 2010, Garrott filed a Civil Rights Complaint against Defendants Earl

22

Wright, Roy Gonzalez, Ron Van Boening, Randy Johnson, and Shane Maitland

23

(“Defendants”). Dkt. 6.

24

On March 24, 2011, Defendants filed a Motion For Summary Judgment. Dkt. 15. The

25

motion was noted for April 22, 2011, which required Garrott to mail his response on April

26

15, 2011, and file it no later than April 18, 2011.

27
28

ORDER – 1

1

On April 12, 2011, Garrott was sent to the infirmary and then placed in the Special

2

Management Unit (SMU) due to receiving an infraction for fighting and resisting arrest.

3

Dkt. 19. On May 6, 2011 Garrott mailed his motion for an extension of time, which was

4

received by the Court on May 11, 2011. See id.

5
6
7

On May 12, 2011, Judge Creatura issued the R&R finding no constitutional violation
and recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt. 17.
On May 19, 2011, prior to this Court’s ruling on his motion for extension of time,

8

Garrott filed a document entitled “Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

9

Judgment” (Dkts. 20, 20-1, & 20-2), and a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 22).

10

On May 20, 2011, Defendants responded to Garrott’s motion for an extension of

11

time. Dkt. 23. On May 24, 2011, Defendants responded to Garrott’s brief in opposition to

12

the summary judgment motion and included a motion to strike. Dkt. 23.
II. DISCUSSION

13
14
15

In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will grant Garrott’s motion for
extension of time and consider all the documents on file.

16

First, Garrott concedes that his claims regarding alleged missing magazines should be

17

dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Dkt. 20-1, p. 2-3. Garrott also

18

concedes that his claims against Defendants Wright, Gonzalez, Van Boening and Johnson

19

should be dismissed for failing to allege personal participation. Id. at 3.

20

With regard to the remaining claim against Defendant Maitland, Garrott has failed to

21

show that (1) the state does not provide a meaningful post-deprivation remedy (Hudson v.

22

Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533) or (2) personal participation by Defendant Maitland in causing

23

the deprivation (Arnold v. International Business Machines Corp., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th

24

Cir. 1981)). Therefore, Garrott’s claim is without merit.

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2

III. ORDER

1
2
3

The Court having considered the R&R, Garrott’s motion for reconsideration, and the
remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

4

(1)

Garrott’s motion for relief (Dkt. 19) is GRANTED;

5

(2)

The R&R (Dkt. 17) is ADOPTED;

6

(3)

Garrott’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 19) is DENIED; and

7

(4)

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.

8

DATED this 22nd day of June, 2011.

9
10

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A

ORDER – 3