Anthony v. Shackmann

Full title: JACOB ANTHONY, Plaintiff, v. CORPORAL ESTHER SHACKMANN and CORPORAL…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 16, 2009

07-CV-698-HU (D. Or. Apr. 16, 2009)

Opinion

07-CV-698-HU.

April 16, 2009

JACOB ANTHONY, #10146552, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Umatilla, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se. JOHN KROGER, Attorney General, LEONARD W. WILLIAMSON, Assistant Attorney General, State of Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Dennis James Hubel issued Findings and Recommendation (#44) on January 26, 2009, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32). Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988).

This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. For example, the Court concludes the Magistrate Judge, after properly viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, concluded Corporal Esther Schackmann's slapping of Plaintiff was a de minimis use of force and, therefore, Corporal Schackmann did not violate Plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment. Similarly, the Magistrate Judge properly found the record reflects neither named Defendant was responsible for Plaintiff's transfer to the Disciplinary Segregation Unit (DSU) and, therefore, Plaintiff may not sustain a First Amendment claim against Defendants. Finally, the Magistrate Judge properly concluded Plaintiff has not established a claim for violation of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because Plaintiff received all of the process he was due relating to his transfer to the DSU.

The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (#44) and, therefore, GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32).

IT IS SO ORDERED.