Davis v. Washington State Department of Corrections et al

Filing 132

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 130 Objections to Report and Recommendation, filed by Keith Adair Davis. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Keith Davis, Prisoner ID: 936379)(TG)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

2
3

KEITH ADAIR DAVIS,

4
5
6
7

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. C16-5129 BHS
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 119), and
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. 130).
The background and procedural history of this case is adequately set forth in the
R&R. See Dkt. 119 at 2. The R&R was entered on July 25, 2017. Dkt. 119. On August 4,
2017, Plaintiff filed a motion informing the Court that he received the R&R with
inadequate notice to properly file objections. Dkts. 121, 122. On August 30, 2017, the
Court extended the deadline for filing objections to the R&R. Dkt. 125. On September
15, 2017, Plaintiff filed his objections. Dkt. 130.
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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

22

ORDER - 1

1

Plaintiff makes numerous conclusory objections to the R&R wherein he reiterates

2

his positions in respect to Defendants’ arguments in favor of summary judgment, but

3

Plaintiff fails to point to any issue not adequately and appropriately addressed by the

4

R&R. See Dkt. 120. Additionally, Plaintiff claims that he has newly discovered evidence

5

that Defendants have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Id. at 1.This evidence

6

consists of a grievance in which a Department of Corrections (“DOC”) official responds

7

that an unspecified audit of their facility has identified areas that will require

8

modification or other upgrades consistent with ADA requirements. Id. at 8. However, this

9

grievance response does not undermine the undisputed facts cited in the R&R

10

establishing that Defendants provided Plaintiff with meaningful access or reasonable

11

accommodations in the DOC facility where he was housed. See Dkt. 119 at 20–22.

12

Reviewing the record, the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that “[t]he undisputed

13

evidence shows Plaintiff was provided with accommodations for his disability.” Id. at 22.

14
15

Therefore, having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining
record, the Court finds and orders as follows:

16

(1)

The R&R is ADOPTED; and

17

(2)

This action is DISMISSED.

18

Dated this 30th day of October, 2017.

19
20

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2