Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

GOULD v. WILLIAMS COUNTY, 4:14-cv-18. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. North Dakota Number: infdco20160418813 Visitors: 28
Filed: Apr. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 15, 2016
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DANIEL L. HOVLAND , District Judge . The Plaintiff, Isaac Gould, is currently an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary in Bismarck, North Dakota. However, at the time that Gould initiated this action, he was a pretrial detainee at the Williams County Correctional Center ("WCCC") in Williston, North Dakota. In February 2014, Gould initiated a pro se civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of federal constitutional vi
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Plaintiff, Isaac Gould, is currently an inmate at the North Dakota State Penitentiary in Bismarck, North Dakota. However, at the time that Gould initiated this action, he was a pretrial detainee at the Williams County Correctional Center ("WCCC") in Williston, North Dakota. In February 2014, Gould initiated a pro se civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging claims of federal constitutional violations against the State of North Dakota, the WCCC, and Fairlight Medical Center in Williston. See Docket No. 6. After an initial screening which concluded that Gould should not be permitted to proceed against the named parties, Gould filed an amended complaint naming new parties. See Docket Nos. 12 and 14. Gould's complaint alleges the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, and Gould was denied necessary medical care. On August 3, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss all of Gould's claims. See Docket No. 64. On February 12, 2016, Gould requested a subpoena for his medical file. See Docket No. 77. On February 26, 2016, Gould filed an amended request for a subpoena of his medical file. See Docket No. 79.

On March 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Charles S. Miller, Jr. issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended the Defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted, Gould's complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and Gould's request and amended request for a subpoena be denied as moot. See Docket No. 80. The parties were given fourteen days to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections were filed.

The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Miller's Report and Recommendation, the relevant case law, and the entire record, and finds the Report and Recommendation to be persuasive. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 80) in its entirety and ORDERS as follows:

1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 64) shall be GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's complaint shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff's request and amended request for a subpoena (Docket Nos. 77 and 79) are FOUND MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer