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.

Cannady v. Frink

United States District Court, District of Montana, Great Falls Division

August 14, 2014

DEWAYNE TODD CANNADY, Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN FRINK, THERESA SCHNEE, CHRISTOPHER ROST, and CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendants.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Keith Strong United States Magistrate Judge

SYNOPSIS

Mr. Cannady alleges he injured his right knee when he slipped on ice while unloading a delivery truck as part of his work assignment while incarcerated at Crossroads Correctional Center. He alleges Defendants were negligent and deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they allowed him to work in such conditions and failed to treat his injury. He has brought claims under Montana law and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. (Complaint, Doc. 8.).

Defendants Frink, Schnee, and Corrections Corporation of America (hereinafter “Crossroads Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment based upon Mr. Cannady’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 28.) Mr. Cannady did not respond to the motion. The Crossroads Defendants have adequately demonstrated that they are entitled to summary judgment. The motion should be granted.

JURISDICTION

Mr. Cannady filed this action in Montana’s Ninth Judicial District Court in Toole County, Montana on February 21, 2013. (Complaint, Doc. 8.) It was removed to this Court by Defendants Frink, Schnee, and Corrections Corporation of America on April 17, 2014. (Notice of Removal, Doc. 1.) The Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties, all of whom are found in Montana. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(A); Mont. R. Civ. P. 4(b). The Complaint alleges a violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a) and supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The case was assigned to Hon. Brian M. Morris, United States District Court Judge, and referred to the undersigned. Local Rule 72.2(a)(1). (Doc. 26.)

STATUS

The case was removed from state court by Defendants Frink, Schnee, and Corrections Corporation of America on April 17, 2014. (Doc. 1.) On May 15, 2014, Mr. Cannady filed a Notice of Change of address indicating he had been released from prison. (Doc. 17.) He also moved to remand the case to state court. (Doc. 17.) That motion was denied because Mr. Cannady had alleged claims under the United States Constitution, invoking this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. (June 17, 2014 Order, Doc. 25.) On July 1, 2014, Defendants Frink, Schnee, and Corrections Corporation of America filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon Mr. Cannady’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies at the prison. (Doc. 28.) Mr. Cannady did not respond to the motion.

STANDARDS

Motions for Summary Judgment

The court shall grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). If the moving party makes a prima facie showing that summary judgment is appropriate, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. On summary judgment, all inferences should be drawn in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. Id. at 159. Filings by pro se litigants are entitled to special deference, and are not held to the standards of attorneys. Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987).

A fact is material if it might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The materiality determination rests on substantive law. Id. A dispute about a material fact is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.

Mr. Cannady has not responded to Defendants’ motion but the Ninth Circuit has made clear that a district court may not grant “summary judgment simply because a party fails to file an opposition or violates a local rule” and must “analyze the record to determine whether any disputed material fact [is] ...


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.