United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Don Antione Jones, pro se.
C. David Dietz, Esq., Kimberly R. Parker, Esq., Kyle M. Thomas, Esq., and Robert B. Roche, Esq., Ramsey County Attorney's Office, St. Paul, MN, on behalf of Ramsey County, Mark Bloom, Sheriff Bostrom, Sgt. Rich Rodriguez, and Lugene Werner.
Tamara L. Novotny, Esq., Cosineau McGuire Chartered, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Dr. Brad Dupre.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for a ruling on Don Antione Jones' Objection [Docket No. 139] to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel's July 30, 2014 Report and Recommendation [Docket No. 137] ("R&R"). In his R&R, Judge Noel recommended that Defendants Ramsey County Sheriff's Department, Mark Bloom, Sheriff Bostrom, Sgt. Rich Rodriguez, Lugene Werner, and Dr. Brad Dupre's Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket Nos. 83 and 89] be granted. After a thorough de novo review of the record and for the reasons stated below, Jones' objections are overruled and Judge Noel's R&R is adopted.
Judge Noel's recitation of the factual background in this case is thorough and is incorporated by reference here. See R&R at 1-7. In summary, this case concerns Jones' alleged treatment while in custody at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center ("LEC") from November 5, 2010 to August 30, 2011. Jones was awaiting trial for violation of a protective order which required him not to contact his wife. During his pre-trial detention, Jones was charged again for violating the protective order when he allegedly used other inmates' phone privileges to call his wife. When Jones arrived at the detention center, he was suffering from coronary artery disease and bipolar disorder. At the time of his detention, he brought with him prescriptions for numerous medications.
Over the course of his detention, Jones alleges Defendants denied him necessary medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Jones also alleges that he was placed in segregated detention (often known as solitary confinement) and was mistreated in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Furthermore, Jones claims that Mark Bloom and the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office failed to properly train its officers to care for inmates like himself.
Judge Noel granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment for several reasons. First, Judge Noel concluded Jones' "failure to train" claim fails as a matter of law because Jones has not identified a policy or custom of Ramsey County or the Ramsey County Sheriff's Office which could have caused Jones' alleged constitutional violations. Second, Judge Noel found Jones fails to state a plausible claim against Werner and Bostrom. In the alternative, Judge Noel found the claims against Werner and Bostrom fail as a matter of law because placing an inmate on suicide watch and providing a Kevlar suit to prevent him from harming himself is not a constitutional violation. Similarly, Judge Noel granted summary judgment to Rodriguez because placing an inmate in segregation is not atypical and there is no evidence in the record supports the contention Jones' placement in segregation was atypical or a significant hardship. Finally, Jones complains that Dr. Bradley Dupre was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. Judge Noel found no evidence that Dr. Dupre was indifferent to Jones' medical needs; therefore, Jones' allegations, even taken as true, do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Jones objects to Judge Noel's grant of summary judgment for the Defendants. Jones does not cite any case law in his Objection. Instead, Jones offers a version of the facts which he argues creates a genuine issue of material fact and justifies overruling Judge Noel.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id . The statute requires the ...