Hill v. Arpaio

Full title: Michael Lynn Hill, Plaintiff, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al. Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Apr 11, 2007

No. CV 04-1908-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2007)

Opinion

No. CV 04-1908-PHX-SRB.

April 11, 2007

ORDER

SUSAN BOLTON, District Judge

Plaintiff Michael Lynn Hill filed this pro se civil rights action alleging that the county jail was severely overcrowded and that he was subjected to the excessive use of force (Doc. #1). Defendants Sheriff Arpaio and Officer Pena moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a physical injury as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (Doc. #31). Plaintiff filed a motion requesting an extension of time to respond to the motion, which the Court will grant (Doc. #33). Plaintiff then submitted his response, to which Defendants replied¹ (Doc. ##34, 35).

1 The record reflects that Plaintiff did not receive summary judgment notice comporting with the requirements set forth inRand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 956-57 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). It is clear, however, from the de novo review of the record that Plaintiff understood the nature of summary judgment and responded to Defendants' motion with a separate statement of facts and over forty pages of documentary evidence; thus, any Rand error is harmless. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 961.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Marshall's Report and Recommendation addressing Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #36). The Report and Recommendation recommends granting the motion as to Plaintiff's claim for damages for emotional injury and denying the motion as to Plaintiff's claims for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages for Fourteenth Amendment violations (Id.).

Neither party has filed objections; thus, the Court is not obligated to review the Report and Recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) ("[t]he district judge . . . shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written objection has been made"). The Court has nonetheless reviewed Judge Marshall's Report and Recommendation and hereby incorporates and adopts it.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #33) is granted.

(2) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Marshall (Doc. #36) is adopted.

(3) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #31) is granted in part and denied in part.

(4) The motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages for emotional injury. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's claims for compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages based on violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.