Alverto v. Henderling

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 ) JEROME CEASAR ALVERTO, ) 9 ) CASE NO. 2:18-cv-01380-BJR-BAT Plaintiff, ) 10 ) ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT Vv. ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 11 ) SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD AND MICHELLE HENDERLING, et al. ) (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 12 ) FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants. ) ) 14 15 16 Before the Court are two motions, (1) Plaintiff Jerome Ceasar Alverto’s (“Plaintiff”) 17 || Motion to Supplement the Record, Dkt. No. 43, and (2) Defendants Michelle Henderling and Shift 18 +. Richard Samp’s (collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 37. 19 As to the first, Plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in August of 2019, Dkt. 20 No. 26, United States Magistrate Brian A. Judge Tsuchida provided a Report and Recommendation 21 7 (“R&R”) recommending denying the motion, Dkt. No. 31, and Plaintiff objected to that 73 recommendation, Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiffs current pending motion seeks to amend a citation in that 24 || objection. Dkt. No. 43. The Court, however, has already adopted Judge Tsuchida’s R&R and 25 || denied Plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 46. As such, Plaintiffs current pending Motion to Supplement the Record is moot and will be denied accordingly. 2 Second, Defendants bring their own Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 37. Judge 3 || Tsuchida has provided another R&R recommending granting Defendants’ motion. DKt. No. 45. 4 Plaintiff both opposes Defendants’ motion, Dkt. No. 40, and objects to Judge Tsuchida’s R&R, > || Dkt. No. 47. 6 The R&R lays out the factual and procedural background of this case and of the Motion, which need not be repeated here. Dkt. No. 45 at 1-3, 5-7. The Court has reviewed Defendants’ 9 motion, Plaintiffs response, Judge Tsuchida’s R&R, and Plaintiff's objections to that R&R, and 10 will adopt the R&R. It is axiomatic that nonmoving parties seeking to avoid summary judgment 11 || must identify specific facts from which a reasonable finder of fact could find in the nonmovant's 12 || favor. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Here, it is clear that whereas 13 |! Defendants have provided substantial evidence in the form of testimonies supporting a lack of a 8 genuine dispute of material facts, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to carry his burden in avoiding summary judgment. As such, granting summary judgment is appropriate. □ 7 The Court, therefore, orders as follows: 18 (1) The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement the Record, Dkt. No. 43, 19 as moot; 20 (2) The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 45, and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 37; 22 23 24 25 ‘ (3) The amended complaint, Dkt. No. 12, is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the case is closed; and 3 (4) The Clerk of Court shall provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff. 4 5 DATED this a day of Wacede_, 2020. y ° b, Lee ieee ew 7 BARBARA J/ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ||