Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fiore v. Drew

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division

February 5, 2015

ROBERT JOSEPH FIORE, II, Plaintiff,
v.
DREW, et al., Defendants

Robert J Fiore, II, Plaintiff, Pro se, Salisbury, NC.

LEONARD T. STRAND, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Robert Joseph Fiore, II (Fiore), commenced this lawsuit on January 21, 2014, by filing a pro se motion (Doc. No. 1) for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. After that motion was granted (Doc. No. 6), Fiore's complaint (Doc. No. 7) was filed on April 24, 2014. The complaint seeks damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the alleged deprivation of Fiore's constitutional rights and names a series of individual defendants (mostly by either first or last name only), along with the Woodbury County Sheriff's Department (WCSD). The defendants have provided the following additional information about the individually-named parties:

1. Defendant David Drew is the Sheriff of Woodbury County.
2. Defendant Todd Wieck is employed by Woodbury County as a Major in the WCSD.
3. Defendant Greg Stallman is employed by Woodbury County as a Major in the WCSD.
4. Defendant Lynette Phillips is employed by Woodbury County as a Lieutenant and Jail Administrator of the Woodbury County Jail (Jail).
5. Defendants Larry and George are nurses at the Jail.
6. Defendant Brigid Delaney is employed by Woodbury County as a corrections officer at the Jail.

Doc. No. 17-1 at 1-2.

Fiore alleges that while confined at the Jail: (1) he was subjected to verbal sexual harassment, (2) his grievances were ignored or otherwise denied and (3) the Jail failed to provide him with the proper medical care for diabetes, various mental disorders and lingering injuries associated with a past motorcycle accident. He alleges violations of his rights under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

On September 22, 2014, defendants filed a motion (Doc. No. 17) for summary judgment as to all of Fiore's claims. They contend summary judgment is appropriate because (1) Fiore failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, (2) Fiore cannot create a genuine issue of material fact regarding any of his claims, (3) the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and (4) defendant WCSD is not subject to liability under Section 1983. On October 21, 2014, Fiore filed a letter (Doc. No. 19) that states various reasons for resisting the motion. Fiore attached some documents to the letter and submitted additional documents separately (Doc. No. 20). Defendants then filed a reply (Doc. No. 21) on October 31, 2014.

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett has referred the motion to me for the preparation of a report and recommended disposition. No party has requested oral argument and, in any event, I find that oral argument is not necessary. See N.D. Ia. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.