Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01908/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01908-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The record reflects that Plaintiff did not receive summary judgment notice

comporting with the requirements set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 956-57 (9th

Cir.1998) (en banc). It is clear, however, from the de novo review of the record that Plaintiff

understood the nature of summary judgment and responded to Defendants’ motion with a

separate statement of facts and over forty pages of documentary evidence; thus, any Rand

error is harmless. See Rand, 154 F.3d at 961.

JDN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Lynn Hill, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.

Defendants, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. CV 04-1908-PHX-SRB 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Michael Lynn Hill filed this pro se civil rights action alleging that the county

jail was severely overcrowded and that he was subjected to the excessive use of force (Doc.

#1). Defendants Sheriff Arpaio and Officer Pena moved for summary judgment on the

ground that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a physical injury as required under the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (Doc. #31). Plaintiff filed a

motion requesting an extension of time to respond to the motion, which the Court will grant

(Doc. #33). Plaintiff then submitted his response, to which Defendants replied1

 (Doc.

##34, 35). 

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendation

addressing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #36). The Report and

Case 2:04-cv-01908-SRB Document 37 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Recommendation recommends granting the motion as to Plaintiff’s claim for damages for

emotional injury and denying the motion as to Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory, nominal,

and punitive damages for Fourteenth Amendment violations (Id.). 

Neither party has filed objections; thus, the Court is not obligated to review the Report

and Recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (“[t]he district judge . . . shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific

written objection has been made”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed Judge Marshall’s

Report and Recommendation and hereby incorporates and adopts it.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #33) is granted.

(2) The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Marshall (Doc. #36) is

adopted. 

(3) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #31) is granted in part and

denied in part.

(4) The motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiff is not entitled to damages for

emotional injury. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory, nominal,

and punitive damages based on violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.

DATED this 11th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01908-SRB Document 37 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2