United States District Court, D. Idaho
JASON C. KAELIN, Plaintiff,
RANDY BLADES, Warden, ALBERTO RAMIREZ, DR. KENNETH KHATAIN and DR. SCOTT ELIASON, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDAITON
J. Lodge United State Distarict Judge.
October 31, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Candy W.
Dale issued a Report and Recommendation
(“Report”), recommending that the Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment be granted. (Dkt. 57.) Any party
may challenge a magistrate judge's proposed
recommendation by filing written objections to the Report
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the
same. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Civil
Rule 72.1(b). The district court must then “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. The district court may
accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No
written objections have been filed. The matter is ripe for
the Court's consideration. See Local Civ. R.
72.1(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court “may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”
Where the parties object to a report and recommendation, this
Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report which objection
is made.” Id. Where, however, no objections
are filed, the district court need not conduct a de
Ninth Circuit has interpreted the requirements of 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C) stating:
The statute [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)] makes it clear
that the district judge must review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations de novo if
objection is made, but not otherwise….“to the
extent de novo review is required to satisfy Article
III concerns, it need not be exercised unless requested by
the parties.” Neither the Constitution nor the statute
requires a district judge to review, de novo,
findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121
(9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Wang v.
Masaitis, 416 F.3d 993, 1000 & n.13 (9th Cir. 2005).
To the extent that no objections are made, arguments to the
contrary are waived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (objections are waived if they are
not filed within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation). “When no timely objection is filed,
the Court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Advisory Committee Notes to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist.
Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974)).
complete procedural background and facts of this case are
well articulated in the Report and the Court incorporates the
same in this Order. (Dkt. 57.) Plaintiff initiated this
action by filing his Complaint against the Defendants raising
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his
Eighth Amendment rights, state law claims of medical
negligence, and non-specified state law claims against
Defendants Blades and Ramirez. (Dkt. 3.) The claims generally
allege the Defendants were deliberately indifferent and
medically negligent in addressing the Plaintiffs serious
medical needs. (Dkt. 3.) Plaintiff argues a state court order
requires Defendants to provide him certain medications and
psychotherapy. Defendants filed the instant Motions for
Summary Judgment which the Report recommends granting. (Dkt.
Court has reviewed the Complaint, the parties' briefing,
the Report, and the entire record herein. In doing so, the
Court is mindful that the Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant and, as such, the filings and motions are construed
liberally. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 1144, 1150
(9th Cir. 2010). That being said, while pro se
litigants are held to less stringent standards, a
litigant's pro se status does not excuse him or
her from complying with the procedural or substantive rules
of the court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972) (per curiam); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750,
757 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held “an
ordinary pro se litigant, like other litigants, must
comply strictly with the summary judgment rules.”
Thomas, 611 F.3d at 1150 (citing Bias v.
Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007)).
these principles here, this Court agrees in all respects with
the Report and adopts the same. The Report's recitation
of the facts is accurate and complete and this Court concurs
with the Report's discussion of the applicable law and
analysis applying that law to the facts in this case. For the
reasons stated in the Report, the Court will grant the
Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Report and
Recommendation entered October 31, 2016 (Dkt. 57) is ADOPTED
IN ITS ENTIRETY and the Defendants' ...