Griepsma v. Andersen

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 JAMES DAVID GRIEPSMA, CASE NO. C21-0302-JCC-TLF 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 CHRISTIAN J. ANDERSEN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 233) to the 16 report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States 17 Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 231). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant 18 record, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and GRANTS 19 Defendants Guillermo Garcia, Douglas Faddis, and Cameron Banas’s motion for summary 20 judgment for the reasons explained herein. 21 Plaintiff brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth 22 Amendment rights based on excessive force. (See Dkt. No. 43 at 4–5, 12–15.) The R&R sets 23 forth the allegations against Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas, which the Court will not 24 repeat here. (See Dkt. No. 231 at 3–7.) Those defendants (along with two others) moved for 25 summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 104 at 9–20.) Initially, Judge Fricke recommended denying 26 summary judgment to all Defendants. (See generally Dkt. No. 218.) However, based on the 1 objections of Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas, (Dkt. No. 219), the Court instructed Judge 2 Fricke to provide it with a revised R&R containing a separate analysis of Plaintiff’s claims 3 against just those defendants—none of whom were alleged to have struck Plaintiff. (See Dkt. No. 4 223 at 2–3.) That revised R&R recommends that the Court grant summary judgment, at least to 5 the non-striking defendants, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them with prejudice. (See Dkt. 6 No. 231 at 1, 11.) In response, Plaintiff lodged the instant objections, now before the Court. (See 7 generally Dkt. No. 233.) 8 A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party objects. See 9 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Here, Plaintiff primarily objects to Judge 10 Fricke’s factual characterizations. (See Dkt. No. 233 at 1–4.) But all are based on uncontroverted 11 evidence that Defendants put forth in moving for summary judgment. (See generally Dkt. No. 12 104.) Plaintiff therefore is barred from now attempting to establish those facts through his 13 objections, in an effort to conjure up a genuine dispute where none existed before. See Nissan 14 Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000) 15 (describing evidentiary burden of nonmoving party to defeat a motion for summary judgment). 16 For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby ORDERS that: 17 1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 233) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No 104) is GRANTED as to 19 Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas; 20 3. Plaintiff’s claims against those defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 21 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to 22 Judge Fricke. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 1 DATED this 6th day of March 2024. A 2 3 4 John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26