Jones v. Special Commitment Center et al

Filing 40

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 38 Objections to Report and Recommendation filed by James Edward Jones. (TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 JAMES EDWARD JONES, Plaintiff, 9 10 11 CASE NO. C14-5018 BHS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION v. SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 15 of the Honorable J. Richard Creatura, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 37), and 16 Plaintiff James Jones’s (“Jones”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 38). 17 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 18 On January 9, 2014, Jones filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Defendants 19 Special Commitment Center (“SCC”), Mark Strong, Todd Dubble, and Al Nerio 20 (collectively “Defendants”). Dkt. 5. Jones alleges that Defendants violated his 21 constitutional rights by failing to provide clean water, hot water for showers, and clean 22 air at the SCC. Id. ORDER - 1 1 On August 22, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 25. On 2 November 10, 2014, Judge Creatura issued the R&R recommending that the Court grant 3 Defendants’ motion because Jones failed to prove that the conditions at the SCC 4 constitute health hazards. Dkt. 37. On November 28, 2014, Jones filed objections. Dkt. 5 38. On December 18, 2014, Defendants replied. Dkt. 39. 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s 7 recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides as follows: 8 9 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 11 Jones argues that he submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the water and 12 air conditions constitute serious health hazards. Dkt. 38. The Court, however, agrees 13 with Judge Creatura’s analysis and conclusion. Although Jones presented evidence that 14 the water is brown, the showers are tepid, and the air is dank, Jones failed to produce any 15 evidence that these unpleasant conditions constitute health hazards. Conclusory, 16 nonspecific statements in affidavits are insufficient, and missing facts will not be 17 presumed. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888–89 (1990). Defendants also 18 submitted evidence that the water and air conditions at the SCC are not health hazards. 19 The Court therefore concludes that summary judgment in favor of Defendants is 20 appropriate. 21 22 ORDER - 2 1 The Court having considered the R&R, Jones’s objections, and the remaining 2 record, does hereby find and order as follows: 3 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 4 (2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and 5 (2) This action is DISMISSED. 6 Dated this 7th day of January, 2015. A 7 8 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 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?