Griepsma v. Andersen

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE JAMES DAVID GRIEPSMA, CASE NO. C21-0302-JCC-TLF Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. CHRISTIAN J. ANDERSEN, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 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.

21 Plaintiff brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on excessive force. (See 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. (See 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. (See generally Dkt. No. 218.) However, based on the 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. (See 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. (See Dkt.

6 No. 231 at 1, 11.) In response, Plaintiff lodged the instant objections, now before the Court. (See generally Dkt. No. 233.)

8 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. (See generally 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).

16 For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby ORDERS that: 17 1. The R&R (Dkt. No. 233) is ADOPTED and APPROVED; 18 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No 104) is GRANTED as to 19 Defendants Garcia, Faddis, and Banas; 20 3. Plaintiff’s claims against those defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice; and 21 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send copies of this Order to counsel of record and to 22 Judge Fricke.

23 // // // // 1 DATED this 6th day of March 2024.

A John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE