Varnell v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 184

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 178 Report and Recommendations. **3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Mitchell Varnell, Prisoner ID: 871147)(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 MITCHELL LEE VARNELL, Plaintiff, 9 10 v. CASE NO. C15-5443 BHS ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 14 of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 178), and 15 Plaintiff Mitchell Varnell’s (“Varnell”) motion for extension of time (Dkt. 179) and 16 objections to the R&R (Dkt. 181). 17 On July 3, 2018, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court 18 deny Varnell’s motion for injunctive relief and grant Defendants’ motion for summary 19 judgment on Varnell’s claims. Dkt. 178. On July 17, 2018, Varnell filed a motion for an 20 extension of time to file objections. Dkt. 179. On July 30, 2018, Defendants responded 21 and requested that, if the Court grants Varnell’s motion, the deadline for objections be set 22 no later than August 10, 2018. Dkt. 180. On August 10, 2018, Varnell filed objections. ORDER - 1 1 Dkt. 181. 1 On August 30, 2018, Defendants responded to Varnell’s objections. Dkt. 2 182. On September 6, 2018, Varnell replied. Dkt. 183. 3 The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 4 disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or 5 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 6 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 7 In this case, Varnell asserts numerous objections. Varnell, however, merely 8 repeats many of his arguments that were properly rejected by Judge Christel. For 9 example, Varnell contends that Defendant Kenneth Sawyer is a consulting, non- 10 specialist, and it was improper to rely on his opinion in opposition to Varnell’s treating 11 specialist’s opinion. Dkt. 181 at 7. Dr. Sawyer, however, is an orthopedic surgeon and is 12 considered a specialist in the medical field of spinal surgeries. Dkt. 176, ¶ 12. Thus, 13 Varnell’s objection on this issue is without merit. 14 Likewise, Varnell fails to establish that any part of the R&R should be modified or 15 rejected. Judge Christel provides a thorough recitation and evaluation of the evidence 16 and the law. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Varnell’s objections, and 17 the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows: 18 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; 19 (2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 130) is GRANTED; 20 (3) Varnell’s motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 129) is DENIED; and 21 1 22 The Court grants Varnell’s motion for an extension because Varnell timely filed his objections within the time frame proposed by Defendants. ORDER - 2 1 (4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case. 2 Dated this 12th day of September, 2018. A 3 4 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 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?