Krause v. Vancouver Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA LEEROY ELIJAH KRAUSE, CASE NO. C22-5204 BHS Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), Dkt. 71, recommending that the Court grant Defendants Vancouver Police Department (VPD) and its officers Nicholaas Gillingham, Ryan Starbuck, Christopher Simmons, and Travis Brown’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt.

45, and Defendant American Medical Response Northwest (AMR)’s motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 61. Pro se Plaintiff Leroy E. Krause was arrested by the officer defendants and forcibly sedated by an AMR employee during that arrest. He sued, asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims based on alleged violations of his Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The R&R thoroughly recites the claims and the evidence and concludes that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. It concludes the officer defendants’ use of force was not unreasonable as a matter of law because Krause was suspected of a violent domestic assault, actively resisted arrest, and suffered only minor injuries, Dkt. 71 at 12. It concludes that Krause’s § 1983 claim against AMR fails as a matter of law because AMR is not a state actor. Id. at 14. And it concludes that two of Krause’s claims are barred by Heck v Humphries, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994). See Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011) (Under Heck, a plaintiff cannot sue under § 1983 if his success would “‘demonstrate’ the invalidity of the earlier conviction or sentence”). It recommends dismissing the case with prejudice.

10 Krause has not objected to the R&R. 11 A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 13 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). “The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). A proper objection requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” in the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

19 The R&R is ADOPTED. Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, Dkts. 45 and 61, are GRANTED and Krause’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.

21 The Clerk shall enter a JUDGMENT and close the case.

22 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED.

2 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2023.

A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge