United States District Court, W.D. Washington
C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's objections
(Dkt. No. 125) to United States Magistrate Judge James P.
Donohue's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 124).
Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and
the relevant record, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's
objections (Dkt. No. 125) and ADOPTS Judge Donohue's
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 124) for the reasons
brings suit against eight defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. section 12132, for claims stemming from medical care
he received while incarcerated at the King County Regional
Justice Center. (Dkt. No. 124 at 1.) Defendants moved for
summary judgment, and Judge Donohue issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the
Court grant Defendants' motion. (Id. at 23.)
Judge Donohue's R&R also provides recommendations on
the following additional motions pending before the Court:
Defendants' motions to strike (Dkt. Nos. 92, 117), and
Plaintiff's motions to proceed to trial (Dkt. No. 90),
for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 111), for discovery (Dkt.
No. 119), and for preliminary injunctive relief (Dkt. No.
121). Plaintiff filed objections (Dkt. No. 125) and a
“motion for altered judgment” (Dkt. No. 126),
which appears to raise an additional objection to evidence
Judge Donohue relied on in making his recommendation.
Court reviews the record before it on objections to an
R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff's objections specifically address only his
claims against Defendants RN David Pasoquens and RN Nancy
Ledgerwood. (Dkt. Nos. 125 at 1-3, 126 at 1.) Plaintiff
contends that Pasoquens examined him on November 2, 2015 and
“mocked” him by offering him a walker instead of
the wheelchair Plaintiff requested. (Dkt. No. 125 at 2.)
Plaintiff asserts that Pasoquens lied in his declaration by
claiming he was not present in the examination, and that
Pasoquens' testimony conflicts with RN Ledgerwood's
statement. (Dkt. No. 126 at 1.) Plaintiff argues that he
could have established this falsehood if he had been provided
counsel. (Dkt. No. 125 at 1, 3.)
Donohue found no evidence that Pasoquens was present at the
November 2, 2015 medical examination, and thus no evidence
that he participated in the challenged conduct. (Dkt. No. 124
at 16.) Plaintiff presents no evidence that contradicts Judge
Donohue's conclusion. (See Dkt. Nos. 125, 126.)
However, even if Plaintiff is correct that Pasoquens
medically examined him and offered him a walker, Plaintiff
has still failed to demonstrate that these actions violated
his constitutional or statutory rights. As Judge Donohue
noted, multiple medical professionals determined that a
wheelchair was not appropriate for Plaintiff's injury.
(Dkt. No. 124 at 12.) Ledgerwood testified that she also
offered Plaintiff the option of a walker as a medically
appropriate alternative to crutches. (Dkt. No. 126 at 4.)
Accordingly, Plaintiff has made no showing of objective
deliberate indifference to his right to adequate medical
care. See Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118,
1125 (9th Cir. 2018). Nor has Plaintiff pointed to any injury
resulting from the alleged conduct of Pasoquens and
Ledgerwood. See id. Thus, the Court finds summary
judgment appropriate on Plaintiff's claims against these
did not object to Judge Donohue's other recommendations.
(See Dkt. No. 125.) Upon review of the record, the
Court finds it appropriate to ADOPT the R&R as to those
foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's
objections (Dkt. Nos. 125, 126) and ADOPTS Judge
Donohue's Report and Recommendation. The Court
accordingly ORDERS as follows:
(1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 92)
(2) Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice;
(3) Defendants' motions to strike (Dkt. Nos. 92, 117) are
GRANTED as to Docket Numbers 62, 66-71, 86, 87, and 116 and