Aurit v. Olin et al
ORDER APPROVED AND ADOPTED 51 Report and Recommendations on Motion for Summary Judgment. granting 33 Defendants Motion to Dismiss converted to a motion for summary judgment; That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Charles Olin, Robb ie Bolton, Joe Strommel, Burl Mcclullar, Rusty Lander, Shane Martin, John Evans, Carol Morton, against the plaintiff, Todd A. Aurit; That defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and That this case is DISMISSED. by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/21/09.(erv, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 08-cv-01248-REB-MEH TODD A. AURIT, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES OLIN, SOTMP, Therapist, ROBBIE BOLTON, SOTMP, Therapist, JOE STROMMEL, Mgr. SOTMP, BURL MCCLULLAR, Prog. Mgr. SOTMP, RUSTY LANDER, MHD, SOTMP, Cord [sic], SHANE MARTIN, Head of Mental Health, JOHN EVANS, Case Mgr., and CAROL MORTON, Case Mgr. Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the following: (1) the defendants' Motion To Dismiss [#33]1 filed January 23, 2009; and (2) the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment [#51] field May 7, 2009. After the motion to dismiss was filed, the magistrate judge converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and permitted further briefing. Thus, in his recommendation the magistrate judge applies the standards applicable to a motion for summary judgment. I approve and adopt the recommendation.
"[#33]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). No objections to the recommendation have been filed 2 and, therefore, I review the recommendation only for plain error. See MoralesFernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).3 The recommendation are detailed and well-reasoned. Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended disposition, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment [#51] field May 7, 2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the defendants' Motion To Dismiss [#33] filed January 23, 2009, properly converted to a motion for summary judgment, is GRANTED; 3. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Charles Olin, Robbie Bolton, Joe Strommel, Burl Mcclullar, Rusty Lander, Shane Martin, John Evans, Carol Morton, against the plaintiff, Todd A. Aurit;
I note that the plaintiff filed an un-captioned document [#59], filed August 7, 2009, that might be read as an objection. This document was filed long after the deadline for filing objections had expired and, thus, is not properly considered as an objection. Even if this document could be considered as a properly filed objection, nothing in the document constitutes a valid objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation. This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.
4. That defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and 5. That this case is DISMISSED. Dated September 21, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:
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?