White Eagle v. Michaelis

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 NAOMI SUE WHITE EAGLE, CASE NO. C22-5410 BHS-TLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 J MICHAELIS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke’s 14 Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 43, recommending that the Court grant 15 Defendants Brandon Duncan and Melissa Holdway’s motion for summary judgment, 16 Dkt. 25, and dismiss the claims against Defendants Duncan and Holdway with prejudice. 17 White Eagle alleges that Defendant Holdway, a psychology associate with the 18 Department of Corrections (DOC), violated her constitutional rights in a variety of ways. 19 She alleges Holdway violated her Eighth Amendment rights by not providing her with 20 treatment for her stomach and bowel issues and by responding with deliberate 21 indifference to White Eagle’s concern that, if White Eagle were found to be mentally 22 unstable, she may not qualify for gender reaffirming surgery. Dkt. 9 at 5, 17. She further 1 argues that when Holdway offered her patients recreational materials during COVID-19 2 lockdowns she violated White Eagle’s constitutional rights because the offer did not

3 constitute proper medical treatment. Dkt. 9 at 6. 4 The R&R concludes that White Eagle failed to present sufficient evidence of a 5 constitutional violation by Defendants Holdway and Duncan. It concludes that White 6 Eagle “failed to put forth any evidence to support a genuine issue of material fact 7 regarding whether Defendant Holdway had any personal participation” in White Eagle’s 8 health care. It reasons that, as “a mental health provider, Defendant Holdway did not

9 prescribe, assign or schedule medical treatments or appointment” and that she therefore 10 “would not have been responsible” for treating White Eagle’s bowel and stomach issues 11 or canceling her medical appointments. 12 The R&R determined that, although White Eagle named as a defendant Brandon 13 Duncan, a resolution specialist with DOC, she failed to make any factual allegations

14 against him. Dkt. 43 at 9. The R&R determined there was “no evidence that Mr. Duncan 15 personally participated in any of the acts or omissions alleged by Plaintiff” and therefore 16 recommended dismissal with prejudice of the claims against him. Id. 17 Finally, the R&R explains the stringent “deliberate indifference standard” 18 necessary to establish an Eighth Amendment violation and concludes that both Holdway

19 and Duncan are entitled to qualified immunity given White Eagle’s failure to submit 20 evidence that the defendants personally participated in the allegations. Dkt. 43 at 11. 21 White Eagle has not objected to the R&R. 22 1 A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report 2 or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28

3 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The statute 4 makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and 5 recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. 6 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires 7 “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

9 The Court, having reviewed the R&R and the remaining record, does hereby 10 ADOPT the R&R, Dkt. 43, in full. Defendants Holdway and Duncan’s motion for 11 summary judgment, Dkt. 25, is GRANTED. Plaintiff White Eagle’s claims against 12 Defendants Duncan and Holdway are DISMISSED with prejudice. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated this 29th day of January, 2024. A 15 16 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 17 United States District Judge

19 20 21 22