Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scott v. Hormel

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

August 20, 2019

BRIAN TYRONE SCOTT, Plaintiff,
v.
BETSY HORMEL, KELLI CURRY, JASON BRYANT, and JOE ALLBAUGH, Defendants.

          ORDER

          SCOTT L- PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On September 13, 2018, United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell issued a Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 34] in this action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Judge Purcell recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26] be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Purcell recommended that all claims brought by Plaintiff against Defendants be dismissed except for Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim seeking (i) monetary damages from Defendants Betsy Hormel and Kelli Curry in their individual capacities and (ii) prospective injunctive relief from the same defendants. See R&R 18, Doc. No. 34. Plaintiff filed his Objection [Doc. No. 35] to the Report and Recommendation. Defendants likewise filed their Objection [Doc. No. 37] to the Report and Recommendation.

         Plaintiff's and Defendants' Objections both generally re-urge the arguments they previously made and which Judge Purcell considered and rejected in issuing the Report and Recommendation. The Court concurs fully with Judge Purcell's resolution of the parties' arguments. As to Defendants' objections to Judge Purcell's R&R, the Court agrees with the R&R's determination regarding what facts have been established and which have not at this point. While some of the arguments asserted by Defendants Betsy Hormel and Kelli Curry might ultimately prevail with additional evidence and support (e.g., via summary judgment motion), the Court concludes that Judge Purcell's treatment of these arguments is proper based on the stage at which this case is located currently and the relevant standard of decision for a motion to dismiss. See Thomas v. Kaven, 765 F.3d 1183, 1188 (10th Cir. 2014). For the same reason, Defendants' reliance on Sloan v. McCoy is misplaced. See No. CIV-10-387-D, 2010 WL 4876026 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 23, 2010). There, Judge DeGiusti adopted the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Couch which addressed an Eighth Amendment claim similar to that asserted by Plaintiff-at the summary judgment stage. See Id. at *1 (adopting report & recommendation, 2010 WL 4923925 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 27, 2010)). The summary judgment record in Sloan appears to have been substantially more developed than the motion-to-dismiss record of this case. Defendants rely on factual assertions which have not been established by the record before the Court and cannot be assumed by the Court in evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

         Therefore, upon de novo review[1] of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26], Plaintiff's Response [Doc. No. 28], Defendants' Reply [Doc. No. 33], Judge Purcell's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 34], Plaintiff's Objection [Doc. No. 35], and Defendants' Objection [Doc. No. 37], the Court:

(1) ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 34] issued by Judge Purcell;
(2) DENIES Plaintiff's Objection [Doc. No. 35] to Judge Purcell's Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated in Judge Purcell's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 34];[2]
(3) DENIES Defendants' Objection [Doc. No. 37] to Judge Purcell's Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated in Judge Purcell's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 34];
(4) GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 26];
(5) DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Jason Bryant and Joe Allbaugh in their official capacities without prejudice;
(6) DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Jason Bryant and Joe Allbaugh in their individual capacities without prejudice; and
(7) DISMISSES Plaintiff's claims seeking monetary damages from Defendants Betsy Hormel and Kelli Curry in their official capacities without prejudice.

         IT IS ORDERED

---------


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.