UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

DAMEION EDWARD ROBINSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAMES TAYLOR, et al., 

Defendants. 

Coffin, Magistrate Judge. 

Case No. 2:16-cv-00312-TC 

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Oregon 

Department of Corrections, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 alleging that defendants were deliberately indifferent 

to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment. Plaintiff also alleges "the tort of negligence" as 

an ancillary state law claim. 

On August 19, 2016, defendants filed a Motion for 

Summary Judgment (#16) on grounds of Eleventh Amendment 

1 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 27 Filed 12/27/16 Page 1 of 4
immunity and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. 

On August 22, 2016, plaintiff was sent a summary judgment 

advice notice (#19) advising him of the federal rules 

concerning summary judgments and what he must do to avoid 

having his case dismissed. Plaintiff was advised that his 

response was due by September 26, 2016. On October 27, 2016, 

plaintiff was ordered to show cause within 30 days why 

defendants' motion for summary judgment should not be allowed 

for the reasons set forth in the motion. 

filed a response. 

Plaintiff has not 

Defendants motion for summary judgment is 12 pages long 

and responds in detail to each of plaintiff's claims with 

cogent argument supported by the declaration of James A. 

Taylor (#17). 

The facts established in the Taylor declaration and 

supporting exhibits have not been controverted by plaintiff. 

Defendants' arguments and supporting facts establish that 

there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that 

defendants are "entitled to judgment as a matter of law.u Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56. 

A party is entitled to summary judgment where the 

documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one 

conclusion. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 

251-52(1986). "If the moving party meets its initial burden 

2 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 27 Filed 12/27/16 Page 2 of 4
of showing the absence of a material and triable issue of 

fact, the burden then moves to the opposing party, who must 

present significant and probative evidence tending to support 

its claim or defense. Intel Corp. V. Hartford, 952 F.2d 1551, 

1558 (9th Cir. 1991). In other words, the non-moving party 

(plaintiff in this case) must produce sufficient evidence 

demonstrating to the court that there are genuine issues of 

material fact to be decided at trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 

To do this, plaintiff must point to specific evidence in the 

record. Celotex v. Catrett, 447 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). 

In this case, defendants have satisfied their initial 

burden. Although being advised of the summary judgment rules 

and afforded an opportunity to do so, plaintiff has not 

presented any evidence or arguments in response. 

Therefore, defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#16) 

should be allowed. The Clerk of the Court should be directed 

to enter a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice. 

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice 

of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a) (1), Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district 

court's judgment or appealable order. The parties shall have 

fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this 

recommendation within which to file specific written 

3 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 27 Filed 12/27/16 Page 3 of 4
objections with the court. Thereafter, the parties have 

fourteen ( 14) days within which to file a response to the 

objections. Failure to timely file objections to any factual 

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a 

waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the 

factual issues and will constitute a waiver of a party's right 

to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's 

recommendation. 

Any appeal. form an order adopting this Findings and 

Recommendation or judgment dismissing this case woul.d be 

frivol.ous and not taken in good faith. Therefore, pl.aintiff's 

in forma pauperis status shoul.d be revoked. 

DATED this ~day of December, 2016. 

Thomas 

United 

4 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Case 2:16-cv-00312-TC Document 27 Filed 12/27/16 Page 4 of 4