Florer v. Kenney et al

Filing 112

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, re 110 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Dennis Florer. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) Paper copy sent to plaintiff @ Shelton address . Modified on 2/13/2012 (JL).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11

DENNIS FLORER,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.

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

KENNEY, L.L. FIGUEROA, et al.,,
Defendants.

15
16

CASE NO. C11-5047 RJB

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable

17 Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, dated January 12, 2012 (Dkt. 108), and
18 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation, dated January 21, 2012 (Dkt. 110).
19 The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and the
20 remaining record, and hereby adopts the Amended Report and Recommendation for the reasons
21 stated herein.
22

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint contends that the Defendants have all denied him

23 adequate medical care and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of his
24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT- 1

1 Eighth Amendment rights. Dkt. 5. The Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendants’ motion
2 for summary judgment be granted and that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. Dkt.
3 108. Plaintiff does not make specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, but simply
4 refers the Court to Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 110.
5

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s arguments. As detailed in the Report and

6 Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to raise a question of fact relating to the deliberate
7 indifference of any of the Defendants. It is undisputed that Plaintiff was provided treatment at
8 every facility where he was housed, and he received treatment every time he requested it. While
9 Plaintiff may be dissatisfied with the refusal to order an MRI, he has failed to submit any
10 evidence that the decisions made by Defendants were medically unsound, let alone a
11 manifestation of deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Differences in judgment between
12 an inmate and prison medical personnel regarding appropriate medical diagnosis and treatment
13 are not enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. See Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240,
14 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460 (9th Cir. 1980). The
15 Defendants have established that they are entitled to summary judgment dismissal of Plaintiff’s
16 claims.
17

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen

18 L. Strombom, objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does
19 hereby find and ORDER:
20

(1)

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

21

(2)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 77) is GRANTED;

22

(3)

Plaintiff’s claims are Dismissed with Prejudice.

23
24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT- 2

1
2
3

(4)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff, counsel for
Defendants and to the Hon. Karen L. Strombom.

Dated this 13th day of February, 2012.

5

A

6

ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT- 3