Littlefield v. McHaffie et al

Filing 74

ORDER ADOPTING 66 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; signed by U.S. District Judge David G. Estudillo. **4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Joseph Littlefield, Prisoner ID: 367229)(AMD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 JOSEPH TYLER LITTLEFIELD, Plaintiff, v. NO. 3:21-cv-05470-DGE ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JERRY MCHAFFIE et al., Defendants. 15 16 On April 28, 2022, the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida issued a Report and 17 Recommendation (Dkt. No. 66) in which he recommended Defendants’ Motion for Summary 18 Judgment (Dkt. No. 48) be granted and the case dismissed with prejudice. The crux of Plaintiff’s 19 claim is Defendants at Clallam Bay Corrections Center provided him Kosher meals with missing 20 food items or inadequate nutrition. (Dkt. No. 27 at 11.) The Report and Recommendation found 21 Defendants “established the state prison has a four-level grievance procedure” and “Plaintiff’s 22 complaint which flows from the allegation that his rights were violated because the Kosher meals 23 he was provided were inadequate should be dismissed because he either did not file grievances 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1 1 as to some of the meals and did not exhaust his remedies regarding the grievances that he did 2 file.” (Dkt. No. 66 at 10.) Further, as to the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, “the evidence shows 3 Defendants did not violate a constitutional right and thus Defendants are not liable.” (Id. at 17.) 4 On May 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 5 71.) Plaintiff contends that his declaration (Dkt. No. 59) was incomplete and not properly filed 6 in support of his opposition (Dkt. No. 64) to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 7 No. 48). Plaintiff provided a 124-page declaration to Department of Corrections (DOC) 8 personnel to be filed with the Court, but the declaration filed contained only 121 pages. (Dkt. 9 No. 71 at 3.) Although Plaintiff requested additional scanning so that the declaration would be 10 entered in its entirety, “[DOC] personnel did not contact Plaintiff for scanning of legal 11 documents until Friday April 15, 2022.” (Id.) Plaintiff again provided DOC personnel the same 12 declaration, Dkt. No. 59, be filed in support of his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 13 Summary Judgment, but DOC personnel failed to enter the document into EFC entirely. (Id.) 14 Due to DOC personnel’s failure to properly file Plaintiff’s documents, he argues “Plaintiff’s 15 Motion Opposing Summary Judgment was not heard with a complete, true and correct copy of 16 all supporting documents and therefore the Court did not have the opportunity to consider the 17 record complete in its entirety . . .” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff further argues “[a]ll reasons for dismissal 18 cited by the Court were adequately addressed by Plaintiff in his motion and supporting 19 documents and evidence put forth that contradicts and debases the arguments of Defendants in 20 their Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Id. at 5.) 21 In response, Defendants argue Plaintiff fails to specify what evidence was not considered 22 by the Court, nor does he explain how it would change the conclusions of the Report and 23 Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 73 at 2.) Defendants assert: 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2 1 [Plaintiff] seems to flatly assert that because the magistrate judge did not consider unspecified pieces of evidence, the entire Report and Recommendation must be rejected. This conclusory argument does nothing to explain why the Report and Recommendation is factually or legally incorrect. 2 3 (Id.) 4 The Court agrees Plaintiff’s objections do not present a material issue that would alter the 5 analysis of the Report and Recommendation. Although Plaintiff claims his declaration (Dkt. No. 6 59) was not properly filed in conjunction with his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for 7 Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 64), his declaration (Dkt. No. 59) was entered in the record on 8 April 1, 2022, and thus, considered by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation 9 published April 28, 2022. Indeed, the Report and Recommendation states “[t]he Court has 10 considered the pleadings and record and the motion for summary judgment is now ripe for the 11 Court's consideration.” (Dkt. No. 66 at 2) (emphasis added). Thus, even if Plaintiff’s 12 declaration was not refiled with his opposition, it was a part of the record and considered by the 13 Court. 14 Further, although Plaintiff claims his declaration is missing three pages, he does not 15 articulate the contents nor the significance of those pages. He provides only the conclusory 16 argument that it would debase all of Defendants’ arguments. Without further explanation, the 17 Court does not find this argument compelling. Additionally, in reviewing Plaintiff’s 121-page 18 declaration (Dkt. No. 59), the list of exhibits Plaintiff provides matches the supporting 19 documents filed. Therefore, it is not apparent which documents, if any, are missing or what 20 evidence would have been presented in the additional three pages. 21 Although undoubtedly frustrating and burdensome for Plaintiff, the filing irregularities he 22 presents, standing alone, do not raise a material issue or provide a reason for the Court to reject 23 the analysis for the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, having reviewed the Report and 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3 1 Recommendation of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s objections, 2 Defendants’ response, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 3 1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 66). 4 2. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. 5 3. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties. 6 7 8 9 10 Dated this 29th day of July 2022. A David G. Estudillo United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4

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?