Mahone v. Pierce County et al

Filing 42

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

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

SYLVESTER JAMES MAHONE,

8
9
10

Plaintiff,
v.
PIERCE COUNTY, et al.,

11

CASE NO. C14-5665 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STRIKE

Defendants.

12
13

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

14 of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 32), and
15 Plaintiff Sylvester Mahone’s (“Mahone”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 38).
16

On August 25, 2014, Mahone filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Pierce County,

17 Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor, and three unknown Pierce County Jail Deputies
18 (collectively “Pierce County”). Dkt. 5. On November 7, 2014, Mahone filed an
19 “emergency motion” to be immediately placed in federal custody because Pierce County
20 Correctional Deputies were threatening his life. Dkt. 21.
21

On December 19, 2014, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending that the

22 Court deny Mahone’s motion. Dkt. 32. On December 31, 2014, Mahone filed

ORDER - 1

1 objections. Dkt. 38. On January 15, 2015, Pierce County responded and moved to strike
2 statements in Mahone’s objections. Dkt. 41.
3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s

4 recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides as follows:
5
6

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.

7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
8
Mahone objects to the R&R, arguing that Judge Strombom failed to consider the
9
latest threats made against him. Dkt. 38 at 3. Mahone detailed these threats in his
10
supplemental declaration, which he submitted as a surrebuttal to Pierce County’s reply.
11
Dkt. 34. The Court has reviewed Mahone’s evidence. This evidence, however, does not
12
establish a threat of irreparable or immediate injury. Mahone fails to satisfy the
13
requirements for a preliminary injunction, as set forth by Judge Strombom in the R&R.
14
See Dkt. 32 at 5–7. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Strombom that Mahone’s
15
emergency motion should be denied.
16
Pierce County asks the Court to strike various statements in Mahone’s objections
17
because the statements are inadmissible. Dkt. 41 at 2. The Court, however, may consider
18
inadmissible evidence when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Flynt
19
Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). Moreover, Pierce
20
County has not shown that it will be prejudiced by the statements. The Court denies
21
Pierce County’s motion to strike.
22

ORDER - 2

1

Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Mahone’s objections, and the

2 remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
3

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED;

4

(2)

Mahone’s emergency motion is DENIED; and

5

(3)

Pierce County’s motion to strike is DENIED.

6

Dated this 22nd 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