Daniels v. Colorado, State of et al

Filing 116

ORDER. The recommendation is correct 106 . Defendants Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint 52 , converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment 84 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 89 is DENIED. Plaintiffs Motion for T.R.O. and Preliminary Injunction 37 is DENIED. Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the above action is DISMISSED. By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/06/2009.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE Civil Case No. 08-cv-01586-LTB-MEH DANNY O. DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PHILLIP TEDESCI, in his individual and official capacity, ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, in his official capacity, JAMES MICHAUD, in his official capacity, and BURL McCULLAR, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER _______________________________________________________________________ This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc 52), converted to a Motion for Summary judgment (Doc 84) be granted, that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 89) be denied, and Plaintiff's Motion for T.R.O. and Preliminary Injunction (Doc 37) be denied. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that Plaintiff's claims against Defendants be dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiff has filed timely specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. I have therefore reviewed the recommendations de novo in light of the file and record in this case. On de novo review, I conclude that the recommendations are correct. Accordingly

ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (Doc 52), converted to a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 84) is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 89) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for T.R.O. and Preliminary Injunction (Doc 37) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and the above action is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Judge DATED: October 6, 2009