Case Information
*1 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
JAMES DAVID GRIEPSMA, CASE NO. C21-0302-JCC-TLF Plaintiff, ORDER v.
CHRISTIAN J. ANDERSEN, et al. ,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 233) to the report and recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable Theresa L. Fricke, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 231). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and GRANTS Defendants Guillermo Garcia, Douglas Faddis, and Cameron Banas’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons explained herein.
Plaintiff brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on excessive force. ( Dkt. No. 43 at 4–5, 12–15.) The R&R sets forth the allegations against Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas, which the Court will not repeat here. ( Dkt. No. 231 at 3–7.) Those defendants (along with two others) moved for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 104 at 9–20.) Initially, Judge Fricke recommended denying summary judgment to all Defendants. ( Dkt. No. 218.) However, based on the *2 objections of Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas, (Dkt. No. 219), the Court instructed Judge Fricke to provide it with a revised R&R containing a separate analysis of Plaintiff’s claims against just those defendants—none of whom were alleged to have struck Plaintiff. ( Dkt. No. 223 at 2–3.) That revised R&R recommends that the Court grant summary judgment, at least to the non-striking defendants, and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against them with prejudice. ( Dkt. No. 231 at 1, 11.) In response, Plaintiff lodged the instant objections, now before the Court. ( See generally Dkt. No. 233.)
A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Here, Plaintiff primarily objects to Judge Fricke’s factual characterizations. ( See Dkt. No. 233 at 1–4.) But all are based on uncontroverted evidence that Defendants put forth in moving for summary judgment. ( Dkt. No. 104.) Plaintiff therefore is barred from now attempting to establish those facts through his objections, in an effort to conjure up a genuine dispute where none existed before. See Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Companies, Inc. , 210 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2000) (describing evidentiary burden of nonmoving party to defeat a motion for summary judgment).
For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 233) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No 104) is GRANTED as to Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas;
3. Plaintiff’s claims against those defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to Judge Fricke.
//
//
//
// *3 DATED this 6th day of March 2024.
A John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE