Lloyd v. Yankey et al

Filing 118

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS, re 114 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by Larry Lloyd.Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL) Paper copy sent to plaintiff @ Port Orchard address . Modified on 2/19/2014 (JL).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5
LARRY LLOYD,
6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10
11

No. C12-5913 RJB

v.
BRIAN YANKEY, Correctional Officer;
P.A. JOHNSON, BRUCE KALER,
Medical Doctor, RN SUE STEVEN,
Supervisor for CONMED, P. McCLAN,
Nurse Practitioner formerly known as
John Doe,

12

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

Defendants.

13
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
14
15

Judge Karen L. Strombom. Dkt. 112. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the motion for

16

summary judgment of Defendants Arlen Johnson, A.R.N.P, Bruce Kaler, M.D., Sue Stevens,

17

R.N., and Patricia McClarin (identified in the caption as P. McClan) (Dkt. 103) be granted and

18

Plaintiff’s federal claims be dismissed with prejudice and his state law claims be dismissed

19
20

without prejudice. Id. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkts.
114, 116. The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s objections, and

21
22
23

the remaining record, and hereby adopts the Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated
herein.

24

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

25

medical care and were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in violation of his Eighth

26
ORDER - 1

1

Amendment rights, in violation of his civil rights, and that Defendants committed medical

2

malpractice. Dkt. 4.

3
4

The Report and Recommendation finds that there is no evidence before the Court that
Plaintiff’s complaints of little finger pain constituted a serious medical need as required to

5
support an Eighth Amendment claim. Further, even if it is assumed that Plaintiff could establish
6
7

a serious medical need, there is no evidence that the Defendants acted with conscious disregard

8

of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff. Dkt. 112 pp. 5-8. Concerning the equal

9

protection claim, the Report and Recommendation finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise a

10

genuine issue of fact that the Defendants acted with purposeful discrimination. Id. pp. 8-9. The

11

Report and Recommendation recommends the Court refrain from exercising pendent jurisdiction

12

over the state law medical malpractice claims and they be dismissed without prejudice. Id. p. 8.

13
The Court has reviewed the Objections and finds that they are no more than a restatement
14
15

of Plaintiff’s arguments made in response to the motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate

16

Judge considered all relevant admissible evidence and Plaintiff fails to raise a genuine issue of

17

material fact supporting any federal claims against these Defendants. As detailed in the Report

18

and Recommendation, Plaintiff has failed to raise a question of fact relating to the deliberate

19
20

indifference of any of the Defendants. While Plaintiff may be dissatisfied with his medical
treatment he has failed to submit any evidence that the decisions made by Defendants were

21
22
23

medically unsound, let alone a manifestation of deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
Differences in judgment between an inmate and prison medical personnel regarding appropriate

24

medical diagnosis and treatment are not enough to establish a deliberate indifference claim. See

25

Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989); Broughton v. Cutter Lab., 622 F.2d 458, 460

26
ORDER - 2

1

(9th Cir. 1980). The Defendants have established that they are entitled to summary judgment

2

dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims.

3
4

The Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Karen
L. Strombom, the Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the remaining record, does

5
hereby find and ORDER:
6
7
8

1)

The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

2)

The renewed motion for summary judgment Defendants Arlen Johnson,
Bruce Kaler, Sue Stevens, and P. McClarin (Dkt. 103) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendants are Dismissed with
Prejudice; Plaintiff’s state law claims are Dismissed without Prejudice.

3)

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

9
10
11
12
13

DATED this 19th day of February, 2014.

14

A

15
16

ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3