From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Varnell v. Wash. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Sep 12, 2018
CASE NO. C15-5443 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 12, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. C15-5443 BHS

09-12-2018

MITCHELL LEE VARNELL, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable David W. Christel, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 178), and Plaintiff Mitchell Varnell's ("Varnell") motion for extension of time (Dkt. 179) and objections to the R&R (Dkt. 181).

On July 3, 2018, Judge Christel issued the R&R recommending that the Court deny Varnell's motion for injunctive relief and grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment on Varnell's claims. Dkt. 178. On July 17, 2018, Varnell filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections. Dkt. 179. On July 30, 2018, Defendants responded and requested that, if the Court grants Varnell's motion, the deadline for objections be set no later than August 10, 2018. Dkt. 180. On August 10, 2018, Varnell filed objections. Dkt. 181. On August 30, 2018, Defendants responded to Varnell's objections. Dkt. 182. On September 6, 2018, Varnell replied. Dkt. 183.

The Court grants Varnell's motion for an extension because Varnell timely filed his objections within the time frame proposed by Defendants. --------

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

In this case, Varnell asserts numerous objections. Varnell, however, merely repeats many of his arguments that were properly rejected by Judge Christel. For example, Varnell contends that Defendant Kenneth Sawyer is a consulting, non-specialist, and it was improper to rely on his opinion in opposition to Varnell's treating specialist's opinion. Dkt. 181 at 7. Dr. Sawyer, however, is an orthopedic surgeon and is considered a specialist in the medical field of spinal surgeries. Dkt. 176, ¶ 12. Thus, Varnell's objection on this issue is without merit.

Likewise, Varnell fails to establish that any part of the R&R should be modified or rejected. Judge Christel provides a thorough recitation and evaluation of the evidence and the law. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Varnell's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:

(1) The R&R is ADOPTED;

(2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 130) is GRANTED;

(3) Varnell's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. 129) is DENIED; and

(4) The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

Dated this 12th day of September, 2018.

/s/_________

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Varnell v. Wash. Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Sep 12, 2018
CASE NO. C15-5443 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 12, 2018)
Case details for

Varnell v. Wash. Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:MITCHELL LEE VARNELL, Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Sep 12, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. C15-5443 BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 12, 2018)