United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on the Report &
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge
David W. Christel. Dkt. 89. The Court has considered the
R&R, Plaintiff's Objections thereof (Dkt. 90), and
the remainder of the file. The R&R should be adopted and
the case dismissed.
findings of the R&R should be adopted in their totality.
The facts need not be repeated, but the Court herein
supplements the R&R with the following analysis to
address the merits of Plaintiff's four objections. Dkt.
90 at 1.
1: The conclusion that Defendant Sziebert had limited
participation in Plaintiff's treatment that did not fall
below the minimum standard of care.
objects to this R&R finding that Defendant Sziebert had
limited participation in Plaintiff's treatment, which
failed to fall below the standard of minimum care, because
this is a “mischaracterization [that] did not take into
account the ten months it took to properly diagnose and treat
the Plaintiff's bones.” Dkt. 90 at 2.
unclear whether Plaintiff objects to the “limited
participation” finding or to the finding that treatment
did not fall below the minimum standard of care. Assuming
Plaintiff objects to both, Plaintiff has not controverted the
record relied upon for either finding. As the R&R
discusses, Defendant Sziebert saw Plaintiff three times
during a ten month period, during which time Plaintiff also
had five visits to a physical therapist, two orthopedic
consults, two x-rays, and an MRI. Dkt. 89 at 8. At all three
of Plaintiff's visits with Defendant Sziebert, Defendant
Sziebert evaluated Plaintiff's broken foot injury, which,
in Defendant Sziebert's opinion, initially needed time to
properly heal. See Dkt. 89 at 9, 10. This Objection
lacks support in the record.
2: Use of the term “sexually violent predator” to
justify use of Eighth Amendment protections for prisoners and
not Fourteenth Amendment protections.
argues that the Court erred by analyzing Plaintiff's
claim under the “Eighth Amendment as [a] sexually
violent predator instead of as a civilly committed person as
if there is some distinction between the two when it comes to
what rights the Plaintiff has under the Fourteenth
Amendment.” Dkt. 90 at 4. Plaintiff argues that he is
deserving of Fourteenth Amendment protections as a civil
detainee “with all the rights that come with it.”
argument is erroneous, because the R&R did, in
fact, analyze Plaintiff's claim under the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments. See Dkt. 89 at 5, 6. As the
R&R articulates, because civilly detained persons are due
more considerate treatment than persons in criminal
confinement, the “the Eighth Amendment [analysis
applicable to criminally confined persons] still provides a
floor for the level of protection” to civilly detained
persons. Id. Plaintiff has not, however, made a
sufficient showing under either standard. Dkt. 89 at 10:18.
3: The conclusion that Defendant Sziebert acted with
deliberate indifference in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
articulating the relevant law for a deliberate indifference
claim, Plaintiff argues conclusorily that “[u]nder any
plausible baseline, Plaintiff Robinson's condition of
confinement implicate [sic] a protected liberty
interest giving rise to procedural due process
protection.” Dkt. 90 at 5.
argument is unavailing. See also, Dkt. 89 at 9, 10.
4: The conclusion that Defendant Sziebert had no supervisory
responsibility as the Medical Director at the Washington
State Commitment Center (SCC).
argues that Defendant Sziebert had supervisory responsibility
because of the “SCC Medical Director's Job
Description[.]” Dkt. 90 at 6, 7. Plaintiff's theory
is that Defendant Sziebert acted with “deliberate
indifference toward the possibility [of] ...