Washington v. Washington State Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 51

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Judge Benjamin H. Settle re 48 Objections to Report and Recommendation, filed by William Washington. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(William Washington, Prisoner ID: 279194)(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 3 4 WILLIAM WASHINGTON, 5 6 7 8 Plaintiff, v. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. 9 10 CASE NO. C17-5728 BHS-TLF This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 45), and Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R (Dkt. 48). The factual background of this case is set forth in full in the R&R. Dkt. 45 at 2. On November 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction, appointment of counsel, and an extension of certain limits on discovery. Dkt. 25. On December 22, 2017, Judge Fricke issued the R&R and recommended that Plaintiff’s request for a TRO be denied. Dkt. 45. On January 8, 2017, Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 48. 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 21 22 ORDER - 1 1 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 2 magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). 3 Reviewing the record, the Court agrees with the R&R’s assessment that Plaintiff 4 has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent 5 preliminary relief, both of which are necessary for the issuance of a preliminary 6 injunction. Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). While the gravity of 7 Plaintiff’s health conditions is unchallenged by Defendants, the adequacy of his treatment 8 while incarcerated is a subject of dispute. Presently, the record lacks any evidence other 9 than Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that Defendants acted intentionally or with 10 deliberate indifference to interfere with Plaintiff’s medical treatment. While Plaintiff has 11 indeed missed several medical appointments, each missed appointment has been 12 accompanied by a reasonable explanation. Dkt. 29 at 6–7; Dkt. 26 at 10, 12, 14, 17, 18. 13 Most importantly, all missed appointments were promptly rescheduled with no adverse 14 impact on Plaintiff’s prescribed course of treatment. Dkt. 26 at 6–18; Dkt. 29 at 6–8. 15 16 The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows: 17 (1) The R&R is ADOPTED; and 18 (2) Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction is DENIED. 19 Dated this 16th day of January, 2018. 20 21 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 22 ORDER - 2

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?