Irons v. Department of Corrections et al
ORDER accepting 203 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Granting 171 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Denying 166 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Denying 199 Plaintiff's request for reversal of the magistrate judge's order denying appointment of counsel. Judgment shall enter in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on all claims, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/2/10.(ebs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 06-cv-02254-PAB-BNB DAVID W. IRONS, Plaintiff, v. ENDRE SAMU, ANITA BLOOR, and COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ This matter comes before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge ("the Recommendation") [Docket No. 203] concerning plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 [Docket No. 166] and defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 171]. By minute order dated October 26, 2009, the Court granted plaintiff until November 12, 2009 to file objections to the Recommendation. On November 9, 2009, plaintiff filed timely objections [Docket No. 208] to the Recommendation. Defendants have filed a response [Docket No. 209] to the objections. Plaintiff objects to the conclusion that there were no genuine issues of material fact presented by the record evidence. Plaintiff's arguments regarding the appropriate weight of certain aspects of the record evidence are without merit and, even if
accepted, would not affect the outcome. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and has construed the plaintiff's pleadings liberally in light of his status as a pro se plaintiff. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The Court agrees with the magistrate judge's thorough and well-reasoned analysis. The record, when drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to plaintiff, entitles defendants to summary judgment. The plaintiff also sought appointment of counsel [Docket No. 196]. The magistrate judge denied that request [Docket No. 198]. The Court finds no error with the magistrate judge's application of the relevant factors to plaintiff's request. See Rucks v. Boergermann, 57 F.3d 978, 979 (10th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 203] is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 171] is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [Docket No. 166] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reversal of the magistrate judge's order denying appointment of counsel [Docket No. 199] is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that judgment shall enter in favor of defendants and against plaintiff on all claims.
DATED March 2, 2010. BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?