Hunsaker v. Jimerson et al

Filing 68

ORDER. The magistrate judges Recommendation on Plaintiffs Verified Motionfor Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 55) 64 , filed 07/27/2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The objections stated in Plaintiffs Objection to R ecommendation on Plaintiffs Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction 66 , filed 08/11/2010, are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction 55 , filed 07/09/2010, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 08/20/2010.(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 08-cv-01479-REB-MJW WILLIAM J. HUNSAKER, JR., Plaintiff, v. JAMES JIMERSON, MICHELLE NYCZ ELIZABETH LIMBRIS, CATHIE HOLST, KEVIN MILYARD, individually and their official capacities as agents and employees of the Sterling Correctional Facility, and ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, individually and in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, Defendants. OVERRULING OBJECTION TO AND ADOPTING AMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. The matters before me are (1) the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 55) [#64],1 filed July 27, 2010; and (2) Plaintiff's Objection to Recommendation on Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction [#66], filed August 11, 2010. I overrule the objection, adopt the recommendation, and deny plaintiff's verified motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. "[#64]" 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. 1 As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Moreover, because 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, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff's objections are imponderous and without merit.2 Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 55) [#64], filed July 27, 2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to Recommendation on Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Plaintiff's complaint that the recommendation should be rejected because it was issued prior to the deadline for plaintiff's reply also is without merit. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C. ("Nothing in this rule precludes a judicial officer from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed."). Moreover, having reviewed plaintiff's reply, I find nothing therein that would alter materially the well-supported findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge. 2 2 Injunction [#66], filed August 11, 2010, are OVERRULED; and 3. That plaintiff's Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction [#55], filed July 9, 2010, is DENIED. Dated August 20, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 3

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?