Washington v. Washington State Dept of Corrections et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
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
ORDER - 1
modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Reviewing the record, the Court agrees with the R&R’s assessment that Plaintiff
has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm absent
preliminary relief, both of which are necessary for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction. Lopez v. Brewer, 680 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012). While the gravity of
Plaintiff’s health conditions is unchallenged by Defendants, the adequacy of his treatment
while incarcerated is a subject of dispute. Presently, the record lacks any evidence other
than Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions that Defendants acted intentionally or with
deliberate indifference to interfere with Plaintiff’s medical treatment. While Plaintiff has
indeed missed several medical appointments, each missed appointment has been
accompanied by a reasonable explanation. Dkt. 29 at 6–7; Dkt. 26 at 10, 12, 14, 17, 18.
Most importantly, all missed appointments were promptly rescheduled with no adverse
impact on Plaintiff’s prescribed course of treatment. Dkt. 26 at 6–18; Dkt. 29 at 6–8.
The Court having considered the R&R, Plaintiff’s objections, and the remaining
record, does hereby find and order as follows:
The R&R is ADOPTED; and
Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO and preliminary injunction is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of January, 2018.
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
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?