United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
CULLEN M. HANKERSON, Plaintiff,
DEPARTMENT OF RISK MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, 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. 67), and Plaintiff Cullen Hankerson's ("Hankerson") motions to present newly discovered evidence (Dkts. 64 & 68), motion to order Defendants to send property to current location (Dkt. 70), motion for extension of time (Dkt. 73), and motion for a continuance (Dkt. 76).
On February 4, 2015, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending that the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 67. On January 22, and February 5, 2015, Hankerson filed motions to present newly discovered evidence in support of a retaliation claim. Dkts. 64 & 68. On February 6 and 12, 2015, Defendants responded. Dkts. 69 & 71. On February 9, 2014, Hankerson filed a motion to order Defendants to send property to his current location. Dkt. 70. On February 12, 2015, Defendants responded. Dkt. 72. On February 13, 2015, Hankerson filed a motion for extension of time to file objections. Dkt. 73. On February 26, 2015, Defendants responded. Dkt. 75. On March 2, 2015, Hankerson filed a motion for continuance of the summary judgment decision. Dkt. 76. On March 6, 2015, Defendants responded. Dkt. 77.
In this case, the majority of Hankerson's motions fail for two fundamental reasons. First, Defendants are not in charge of Hankerson's detention location and do not have the ability to retaliate against Hankerson by reassigning Hankerson to a different institution. The Defendants in this action are the state Department of Risk Management and employees within that department. As such, neither the department nor its employees have authority over any correctional institution or decision. Therefore, the Court denies Hankerson's motions for the retaliation claims and the motion for an order to send property to the current location of confinement.
Second, Judge Strombom recommends granting summary judgment on the majority of Hankerson's claims because they fail as a matter of law. Dkt. 76. Thus, any extension of time or continuance to gather evidence is unnecessary. With regard to the two claims that should be dismissed for a lack of evidence, failure to fulfill ministerial duties and fraud, Hankerson fails to show how any of the evidence that he has requested will overcome the failures outlined in the R&R.
Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Hankerson's motions, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
(1) Hankerson's motions (Dkts. 64, 68, 70, 73, & 76) are DENIED;
(2) The R&R is ADOPTED;
(3) Hankerson's in forma pauperis is REVOKED for the ...