United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHNSTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Cathy Redfern's Motion for
Summary Judgment. (Doc. 14.) Mr. Davis, a former prisoner,
proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint alleging a
denial of medical during his incarceration at Montana State
Prison (MSP). He subsequently filed a motion to amend to add
Cathy Redford as a Defendant. (Doc. 7.) The Court granted the
motion and required Defendants to respond to the Complaint.
represent that there is no Cathy Redford employed at MSP.
Defendants represent and Mr. Davis has not disputed that Mr.
Davis is referring to former Medical Services Administrator
Cathy Redfern. The Clerk of Court will be directed to correct
the docket and change “Cathy Redford” to
“Cathy Redfern.” Ms. Redfern ended her employment
at MSP on March 4, 2016 and Mr. Davis did not arrive at MSP
until April 19, 2017. As such, Ms. Redfern moves for summary
notice provided on December 21, 2018 (Doc. 17), Mr. Davis was
advised of the requirements for opposing a motion brought
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.
1998)(en banc); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409
(9th Cir. 1988). Mr. Davis did not respond to Ms.
Redfern's motion. A failure to file any opposition to a
motion for summary judgment, however, does not relieve the
moving party of its obligation to meet its burden of showing
its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. See N.
Slope Borough v. Rogstad, 126 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th
Cir. 1997) (holding that the trial court erred by resting its
grant of summary judgment on the opposing party's failure
to file a response).
judgment is appropriate when the moving party “shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is undisputed that Mr. Davis first
arrived at MSP on April 19, 2017 and that Ms. Redfern ended
her employment with the Montana Department of Corrections on
March 4, 2016. (Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 16
(“SUF”) at ¶¶ 1, 3.)
Court has reviewed Ms. Redfern's motion and finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact because Mr.
Redfern was not employed at Montana State Prison during Mr.
Davis's incarceration there. The motion should be granted
and Ms. Redfern should be dismissed from this action.
upon the foregoing, the Court issues the following:
Clerk of Court is directed to edit the docket to indicate the
proper name of Defendant Cathy Redford is Cathy Redfern.
the Court issues the following:
Redfern's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 14) should be
GRANTED and Ms. Redfern should be DISMISSED as a Defendant in
OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
parties may file objections to these Findings and
Recommendations within fourteen (14) days after service
(mailing) hereof. 28 U.S.C. § 636. Failure to timely
file written objections may bar a de novo ...