Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Branson S. Ward v. Sgt. Rich

January 25, 2013

BRANSON S. WARD,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SGT. RICH, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable A. Howard Matz United States District Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and the Objections filed by Plaintiff, de novo.

IT IS ORDERED that the Judgment be entered: (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; (2) granting partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amendment free exercise claim, Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim, and Fourteenth Amendment claim, as to all Defendants; and (3) granting partial summary judgment motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff's punitive damages claim against Defendants' Goodrich and Holmes.

The sole claim remaining for trial is Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Vernal and Harris.

See also attached Appendix A.

Prepared by: HONORABLE OSWALD PARADA United States Magistrate Judge

APPENDIX A

1. Date Error in SAC

Page 3 of the R&R states: "This action arises from several incidents allegedly occurring . . . from September 21 through 31, 2005." This is taken directly from the SAC, which lists the date as "9-31-05."

2. First Amendment Claim

Based on the SAC and other documents submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's First Amendment claim appears to be that he was denied access to his Bible after he was placed in a safety cell and that the Defendants were hostile to his practice of his religion. In particular, Defendant Goodrich showed Plaintiff "with his actions" that he was unhappy with Plaintiff practicing his religion, and Defendant Holmes denied Plaintiff water to drink and taped a garbage bag over the window of the safety cell as a way to stop him from practicing his religion. (SAC at 5; Dkt. 84 at 1-2.)

A. Accuracy of the Undisputed Facts

All of Defendants' undisputed facts are supported by citations to excerpts of Plaintiff's deposition transcript, and they accurately portray Plaintiff's own statements about the incident. For example, SUF ¶ 1 states "Goodrich did not 'punish' Plaintiff due to his religious beliefs." This is supported by Plaintiff's statement: "I can't say that he punished me. I don't know if he was doing it deliberately or what, or if he just didn't understand. . . . I don't know if he was trying to punish me, but I did suffer because of his decisions that he made."

The Magistrate Judge's findings of fact are largely based directly on Defendants' statement of undisputed facts. They are based on evidence in the record, and I agree that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.