Nasious v. Denver, City and County of et al

Filing 222

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 214 Report and Recommendations: 181 Motion for Summary Judgment, 182 Motion for Summary Judgment, and 187 Motion for Summary Judgment are granted. In forma pauperis on appeal is denied. This case is dismissed with prejudice. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 10/10/12. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 08-cv-00275-CMA-KMT
JOHN NASIOUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department,
SHERIFF STRONG, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, in his official
and individual capacity,
NURSE ROSIE PAGLIANO, Denver Sheriffs [sic] Department, in her official
and individual capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING AUGUST 28, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the August 28, 2012 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya, in which she recommended that
the three pending summary judgment motions be granted. (Doc. # 214.) The motions
pending are Defendant City and County of Denver=s Combined Summary Judgment
Motion and Brief (Doc. # 181), Defendant Sheriff Strong=s Motion for Summary
Judgment and Memorandum Brief (Doc. # 182), and Defendant Nurse Rosie Pagliano=s
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 187.)

On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff John Nasious, proceeding pro se, filed an
Objection to the Recommendation.1 Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court
Areview[s] his pleadings and other papers liberally and hold[s] them to a less stringent
standard than those drafted by attorneys.@ Trackwell v. U.S. Gov=t, 472 F.3d 1242,
1243 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Defendants
responded on October 8, 2012. (Doc. # 220.)
This Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including carefully
reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, Plaintiff=s Objection to the
Recommendation, and Defendants= Response to Plaintiff=s Objection. In his Objection,
Plaintiff fails to raise any new issues of law or fact that would warrant a different
conclusion. Based on the Court=s de novo review, the Court concludes that the
Magistrate Judge=s thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations
regarding the motions for summary judgment are correct. Therefore, Plaintiff=s
Objection is OVERRULED and the Court hereby ADOPTS the Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1)

Defendant City and County of Denver=s Combined Summary Judgment
Motion and Brief (Doc. # 181) is GRANTED;

1

On September 10, 2012, Plaintiff requested a twenty-five day extension of time to respond
to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 215.) The Court granted that request in part, and ordered
that Plaintiff shall have Ato and including September 26, 2012, within which to respond to the
Magistrate Judge=s Recommendation.@ (Doc. # 216.) Although Plaintiff=s Objection was not
entered in the docket until September 27, 2012, his Objections was time-stamped by the Clerk
of the Court on September 26, 2012 and, thus, Plaintiff’s Objection was timely filed.

2

(2)

Defendant Strong=s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum
Brief (Doc. # 182) is GRANTED; and

(3)

Defendant Pagliano=s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 187) is
GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), any appeal
from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and thus, such an appeal may not be
taken in forma pauperis.
In light of the above, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: October

10

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

________________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3