Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mahone v. Pierce County

United States District Court, Western District of Washington, Tacoma

January 22, 2015

SYLVESTER JAMES MAHONE, Plaintiff,
v.
PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, United States District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 32), and Plaintiff Sylvester Mahone’s (“Mahone”) objections to the R&R (Dkt. 38).

On August 25, 2014, Mahone filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Pierce County, Pierce County Sheriff Paul Pastor, and three unknown Pierce County Jail Deputies (collectively “Pierce County”). Dkt. 5. On November 7, 2014, Mahone filed an “emergency motion” to be immediately placed in federal custody because Pierce County Correctional Deputies were threatening his life. Dkt. 21.

On December 19, 2014, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending that the Court deny Mahone’s motion. Dkt. 32. On December 31, 2014, Mahone filed objections. Dkt. 38. On January 15, 2015, Pierce County responded and moved to strike statements in Mahone’s objections. Dkt. 41.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition. Rule 72(b) provides as follows:

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).

Mahone objects to the R&R, arguing that Judge Strombom failed to consider the latest threats made against him. Dkt. 38 at 3. Mahone detailed these threats in his supplemental declaration, which he submitted as a surrebuttal to Pierce County’s reply. Dkt. 34. The Court has reviewed Mahone’s evidence. This evidence, however, does not establish a threat of irreparable or immediate injury. Mahone fails to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction, as set forth by Judge Strombom in the R&R. See Dkt. 32 at 5–7. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Strombom that Mahone’s emergency motion should be denied.

Pierce County asks the Court to strike various statements in Mahone’s objections because the statements are inadmissible. Dkt. 41 at 2. The Court, however, may consider inadmissible evidence when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). Moreover, Pierce County has not shown that it will be prejudiced by the statements. The Court denies Pierce County’s motion to strike.

Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Mahone’s objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The R&R is ADOPTED;

(2) Mahone’s emergency motion is DENIED; and

(3) Pierce County’s motion to strike is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.