Morris v. Colorado, State of et al
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. It is RECOMMENDED that 23 plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and Petition for Immediate Intervention and Oversight by the District Court be DENIED. By Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/27/2009. (sah, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 09-cv-00103-CMA-BNB NEAL ALLEN MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. ARISTEDES W. ZAVARAS, Executive Director of the DOC, HOYT BRILL, Warden of KCCC, MR. WILKERSON, Assistant Warden of KCCC, MR. WINDSLOW, Legal Access Facilitator of KCCC, MS. COOPER, Unit Manager of KCCC, MS. VAUGHN, Case Manager of KCCC, MS. MAINE, Private Prison Monitor Unit Staff of KCCC, and MS. BLAKE, Grievance Officer at KCCC, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and Petition for Immediate Intervention and Oversight by the District Court [Doc. #23, filed 06/09/2009] (the "Motion"). I respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion be DENIED. The plaintiff was incarcerated by the Colorado Department of Corrections at the Kit Carson Correction Center ("KCCC") at the time he filed this action. The plaintiff asserts that a KCCC prison official, Mr. Windslow, is harassing him and denying him access to the courts. As a result, he seeks "an expedited schedule for a resolution of the matters in this Action" and reassignment of Mr. Windslow. On September 3, 2009, the plaintiff filed a notice of change of address which informs the court that the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at KCCC [Doc. #35].
The plaintiff's request for injunctive relief must be denied because the plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at KCCC. A plaintiff's request for an injunction must be denied where "entry of injunctive relief in [the plaintiff's] favor would have no effect on the defendants' behavior." Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1997). I respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion be DENIED. FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties have 10 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific, written objections. A party's failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the district judge, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. In re Key Energy Resources Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199-1200 (10th Cir. 2000). A party's objections to this recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Dated October 27, 2009. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge
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?