Givens v. Lander et al
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 14 Plaintiff's MOTION for Temporary Restaining [sic] Order be denied, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 10/27/09. (ebs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 09-cv-00945-PAB-BNB WILLIAM GIVENS, Plaintiff, v. JAMES LANDER, JACKIE JONES, and GARY TORREZ, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restaining [sic] Order [Doc. #14, filed 06/16/2009] (the "Motion"). I respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion be DENIED. The plaintiff filed his Prisoner Complaint (the "Complaint") on April 24, 2009. The Complaint is brought against prison officials at the Fremont Correctional Facility. The Complaint asserts two claims. Claim One alleges a violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment right to free speech. Claim Two alleges a violation of the plaintiff's First Amendment right to access the courts. The plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is brought against prison officials at the Buena Vista Correctional Complex. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for his "health and safety"
because he was "grope by one of the guards" at the Buena Vista Correctional Complex; he filed a
grievance against the staff for groping him; and the staff is retaliating against him for filing the
The plaintiff may not use this action to seek an injunction concerning events and defendants that are wholly unrelated to those asserted in the existing Complaint. If the plaintiff wishes to assert a claim for injunctive relief regarding events that occurred at the Buena Vista
Correctional Complex, he must either file a separate complaint raising those issues or seek leave
to amend his complaint to include those claims.1 Accordingly,
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. Makin v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996). 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).
The plaintiff recognizes that he "made a mistake" when he filed his Motion under this civil action number. Response to Defendants' [sic] Motion for Temporary Restaining [sic] Order [Doc. #21]. However, he has not attempted to file a separate action against Buena Vista Correctional Complex officials. 2
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?