Logan v. Bunch et al

Filing 67

ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 66 filed 03/24/2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The plaintiffs Instant Motion for Restraining Order 25 filed 09/30/2009, is DENIED as moot. The plaintiffs Motion for Investigation 37 filed 11/30/2009, is DENIED as moot. The plaintiffs Motion To Appoint Counsel 41 filed 12/28/2009, is DENIED as moot. The Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support Thereof 57 filed 03/20/2010, is GRANTED. JUDGMENT S HALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Mr. Bunch, Correctional Officer, Mr. Potter, Correctional Officer, Mr. Sproul, Unit Manager, and Mr. Wiley, Warden, against the plaintiff, Lawrence W. Logan. The 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. This case is DISMISSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 08/23/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-01704-REB-BNB LAWRENCE W. LOGAN, Plaintiff, v. MR. BUNCH, Correctional Officer, MR. POTTER, Correctional Officer, MR. SPROUL, Unit Manager, and MR. WILEY, Warden, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. This matter is matter before me on the following: (1) the plaintiff's Instant Motion for Restraining Order [#25]1 filed September 30, 2009; (2) the plaintiff's Motion for Investigation [#37] filed November 30, 2009; (3) the plaintiff's Motion To Appoint Counsel [#41] filed December 28, 2009; (4) the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support Thereof [#57] filed March 20, 2010; and (5) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#66] filed March 24, 2010. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. The plaintiff has not filed objections to the recommendation. Therefore, I review the recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez

"[#25]" 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

v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 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. When he filed his complaint, the plaintiff was an inmate at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum, in Florence, Colorado. He alleges that two of the individual defendants have place contaminants in his food, that he has been denied privileges and services in violation of his right to equal protection of the law, and that defendant Wiley has failed to take action against the other defendants. In his motion for restraining order [#25] the plaintiff makes similar allegations. The magistrate judge recommends that the defendants' motion for summary judgment [#57] be granted because the undisputed facts in the record demonstrate that the plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies as to any of his claims as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), or that he is entitled to tolling of the deadlines for exhaustion of administrative remedies. In this context, the plaintiff's other pending motions are moot. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#66] filed March 24, 2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the plaintiff's Instant Motion for Restraining Order [#25] filed September 30, 2009, is DENIED as moot; 3. That the plaintiff's Motion for Investigation [#37] filed November 30, 2009, is DENIED as moot;

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.

2

2

4. That the plaintiff's Motion To Appoint Counsel [#41] filed December 28, 2009, is DENIED as moot; 5. That the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support Thereof [#57] filed March 20, 2010, is GRANTED;
6. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Mr. Bunch,

Correctional Officer, Mr. Potter, Correctional Officer, Mr. Sproul, Unit Manager, and Mr. Wiley, Warden, against the plaintiff, Lawrence W. Logan;
7. That the 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

8. That this case is DISMISSED. Dated August 23, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

3