From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dalrymple v. Dooley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 6, 2014
CIV. 12-4098-KES (D.S.D. Oct. 6, 2014)

Summary

In Dalrymple v. Dooley, 2014 WL 4987596, *5 (D.S.D. Oct. 6, 2014), the court identified respite areas as a factor in finding that the Barracks at MDSP did not violate plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights to humane conditions. If such areas were not available, it is possible that conditions could be inhumane.

Summary of this case from Brakeall v. Stanwick-Klemik

Opinion

CIV. 12-4098-KES

10-06-2014

DANIEL R. DALRYMPLE and LESLIE W. WHITE, JR., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT DOOLEY, Warden; JENNIFER STANWICK-KLIMEK, Associate Warden; SUSAN JACOBS, Associate Warden; LELAND TJEERDSMA, Major, Special Security; JACQUELINE PETERS, Sergeant; NICOLE ST. PIERRE, Mail Room; CORY NELSON, Mental Health; TOM GILCHRIST, Mental Health; MATT FITCH, Laundry; TRAVIS TJEERDSMA, Unit Coordinator; TAMMY DOYLE, Unit Manager; LORI DROTZMAN, GED Teacher; KIMBERLY LIPPINCOTT, Case Manager; SUNNY WALTER, Attorney; JAMES HALSEY, C.A.C. Library; GARY CHRISTENSEN, Unit Manager; NANCY CHRISTENSEN, Unit Manager; MARK BIDNE, Paralegal, Mike Durfee State Prison; CARLA GROSSHUESCH, Unit Coordinator; MICHAEL HANVEY, Physician Assistant; TERRY ROMKEMA, Corporal; MICHAEL GROSSHUESCH, Lieutenant; GARY AVDOYAN, Correctional Officer; DANIEL SESTAK; Lieutenant; and MARK PISCHEL, Correctional Officer, Mike Durfee State Prison, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs, Daniel R. Dalrymple and Leslie W. White, Jr., filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge John Simko pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for the purpose of conducting any necessary hearings, including evidentiary hearings. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on May 9, 2014.

On September 11, 2014, Magistrate Judge Simko submitted his report and recommended that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. Docket 172. Dalrymple and White were notified in the report and recommendation that they had 14 days to file objections to the report. Even though no objections were filed that would require de novo review under Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356 (8th Cir. 1990), the court reviewed the matter de novo and finds that the magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted in full. Therefore, it is

ORDERED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Simko (Docket 172) is adopted in full and the motion for summary judgment is granted.

Dated October 6, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier

KAREN E. SCHREIER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Dalrymple v. Dooley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Oct 6, 2014
CIV. 12-4098-KES (D.S.D. Oct. 6, 2014)

In Dalrymple v. Dooley, 2014 WL 4987596, *5 (D.S.D. Oct. 6, 2014), the court identified respite areas as a factor in finding that the Barracks at MDSP did not violate plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights to humane conditions. If such areas were not available, it is possible that conditions could be inhumane.

Summary of this case from Brakeall v. Stanwick-Klemik
Case details for

Dalrymple v. Dooley

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL R. DALRYMPLE and LESLIE W. WHITE, JR., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Oct 6, 2014

Citations

CIV. 12-4098-KES (D.S.D. Oct. 6, 2014)

Citing Cases

Leider v. Moeller

See Id. at 4, 7-8. To sufficiently allege that the conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment,…

Landman v. Kaemingk

To sufficiently allege that the conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment, Landman must assert…