Pinson v. Pacheco et al

Filing 100

ORDER approving and adopting 75 Report and Recommendation; denying 72 Plaintiff's Third Motion for Preliminary Injunction, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 12/14/10.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 10-cv-01377-REB-MJW JEREMY PINSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT PACHECO, SARA REVELL, MERRY WILNER, DELBERT SAVERS, HARLEY LAPPIN, and MICHAEL NALLEY, Defendants. OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation on Plaintiff's Third Motion for a Preliminary Injunction/Declaratory Order (Docket No. 72) [#75]1 filed November 18, 2010; and (2) Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation (Doc. 75) [#84], filed December 2, 2010. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and deny the apposite motion. 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

"[#27]" 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

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. Bellmon, 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. 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 Recommendation on Plaintiff's Third Motion for a Preliminary Injunction/Declaratory Order (Docket No. 72) [#75] filed November 18, 2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation (Doc. 75) [#84] filed December 2, 2010, are OVERRULED; and 3. That Plaintiff's Third Motion for a Preliminary Injunction/Declaratory Order [#72] filed November 16, 2010, is DENIED. Dated December 14, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: