Celia v. Kane, 3:13-cv-03018

Celia, an inmate at Fort Dodge Correctional Facility, sues under §1983 for failure to protect from threats by a prison gang.
He was placed in protective custody, requested transfers, and was returned to general population before being attacked by a gang member from another unit.
The attack caused a nine-stitch facial wound; Celia was promptly placed back into protective custody.
Celia seeks a cosmetic scar removal and monetary relief; defendants move to dismiss, treating the motion as one for summary judgment.
Magistrate Judge Strand recommended granting summary judgment, concluding Celia failed to exhaust remedies and had insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference; no need to reach qualified immunity.
Judge Bennett adopted the recommendation, granting summary judgment for defendants and directing entry of judgment against Celia.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of administrative remedies	Celia argues exhaustion requirements were satisfied.	Kane, Moore, Zdrazil assert Celia failed to exhaust under §1997e(a).	Exhaustion not shown; summary judgment granted on this ground.
Deliberate indifference and failure to protect	Celia contends defendants ignored requests for protection, violating Eighth Amendment rights.	Defendants contend no deliberate indifference; actions were not unlawful under the circumstances.	No triable issue; summary judgment for defendants on merits.
Qualified immunity	Celia implies defendants violated clearly established rights; reverse immunity should apply.	Defendants contend immunity would apply; record insufficient to show a clearly unlawful restraint.	Not reached as merits disposed of; court accepted magistrate’s recommendation on immunity as alternative ground.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (de novo review standards for magistrate recommendations when objections filed)
Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) (de novo review limitations when no objections)
Taylor v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1990) (clear error standard for unopposed magistrate findings)
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (no timely objections triggers clear error review)
Ewing, 632 F.3d 412 (8th Cir. 2011) (waiver of de novo review for unobjected magistrate findings)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (defining clearly erroneous standard; ultimate fact review)
Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803 (8th Cir. 1994) (retention of district court review over magistrate findings)
United States v. Ewing, 632 F.3d 412 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review principles for magistrate recommendations)