Archuleta v. Adams County et al

Filing 214

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's objections are overruled and the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 211 is adopted. 2. The Motion for Summary Judgment [ 169] filed by Defendants Adams County Board of County Commissioners, Darr, Gregory, McKenzie, Hinrichs, and Potter is granted. Upon resolution of the remaining issues, the Clerk shall enter judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of these Defendants on all claims asserted against them.3. The claims asserted against Defendants Nanney and Spence in their individualcapacities remain pending. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 8/25/11.(msksec, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Honorable Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 07-cv-02515-MSK-CBS
VICTOR S. ARCHULETA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
DOUG DARR,
MELANIE GREGORY,
JAMES MCKENZIE,
ROBERT NANNEY,
JUSTIN SPENCE,
[JAMES] HINRICHS, and
VINCE POTTER,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (#211), filed June 14, 2011, to which Plaintiff Victor S. Archuleta has filed a
timely objection (#212). In the Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment (#169) filed Defendants Adams County
Board of County Commissioners, Darr, Gregory, McKenzie, Hinrichs, and Potter be granted,
leaving pending the claims asserted against Defendants Nanney and Spence.
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive motion, the parties
may file specific, written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of the
recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court shall make

a de novo determination of those portions of the recommendation to which timely and specific
objection is made. See U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop. Known as 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d
1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Plaintiff generally objects to the recommendation but does not clearly identify any
specific error, rather citing only general principles regarding official capacity liability1 and
liberal construction of pro se pleadings. Plaintiff otherwise simply incorporates by reference the
arguments presented in the complaint and brief in response to the motion for summary judgment.
This is insufficiently specific to preserve any issue for review. Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d
1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (“Just as a complaint stating only ‘I complain’ states no claim, an
objection stating only ‘I object’ preserves no issue for review.”).
Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the recommendation under the otherwise
applicable de novo standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Upon such de novo review, however, the
Court reaches the same conclusion as that articulated in the Recommendation for substantially
the same reasons.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
1.

Plaintiff’s objections are overruled and the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (#211) is adopted.

2.

1

The Motion for Summary Judgment (#169) filed Defendants Adams County

Plaintiff appears to argue that although the individual capacity claims against
Defendants Nanney and Spence were not addressed, Magistrate Judge Shaffer improperly
granted summary judgment with respect to the official capacity claims against these defendants
by resolving the claims against the Adams County Board of County Commissioners and against
the Sheriff in his official capacity. However, Plaintiff does not point to any specific error in this
regard, and the Court’s review reveals no error of law or fact with respect to Magistrate Judge
Shaffer’s determination that summary judgment should enter in favor of the governmental entity
defendants.

Board of County Commissioners, Darr, Gregory, McKenzie, Hinrichs, and Potter
is granted. Upon resolution of the remaining issues, the Clerk shall enter
judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of these Defendants on all claims asserted
against them.
3.

The claims asserted against Defendants Nanney and Spence in their individual
capacities remain pending.

Dated this 25th day of August, 2011

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
United States District Judge