Allen v. Corrections Corporation of America et al

Filing 120

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAY 8, 2012 112 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Plaintiff's 118 Objections are overruled. Defendants' 82 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff's 87 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is denied. Any appeal from this order will not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status would be denied for the purpose of the appeal. This case is dismissed with prejudice. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 5/31/12.(mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01992-CMA-MJW
SHAWN D. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA (a Private for Profit Corporation),
J. GARY,
N. ARREDONDO,
LT. PHILLIPS, and
C. BLAKE,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAY 8, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to Unites States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 16.) On May 8, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 112) on Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82) and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 87). The Magistrate Judge advised this Court to grant Defendants’ Motion and
to deny Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion. (Doc. # 112 at 20.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the
Recommendation on May 18, 2012 (Doc. # 118), to which Defendants responded on
May 29, 2012. (Doc. # 119.)

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”
In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Id.
In the instant case, Plaintiff does not “properly object[ ]” to any part of the
Recommendation because he fails to challenge any specific factual finding or legal
conclusion. Instead, his Objections consist of conclusory statements accusing the
Magistrate Judge of “turn[ing] a blind eye to the facts” and asserting that the Magistrate
Judge should have “been recused . . . [due to his] biased and bizarre recommendation.”
(Doc. # 118 at 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s Objections do not trigger de novo review.
Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, carefully
reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Objections to the
Recommendation, and Defendants’ Response thereto. Based on this de novo review,
the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to be correct and further finds
that the Recommendation is not called into question by Plaintiff’s Objections.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Recommendation of the Unites States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 112),
filed May 8, 2012, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
2. Plaintiff’s Objections (Doc. # 118) are OVERRULED.
2

3. Pursuant to the Recommendation:
a. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82) is GRANTED.
b. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 87) is DENIED.
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this order will not be
taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status would be denied
for the purpose of the appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438
(1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he would be required to pay the full
$455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days, in
accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
5. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: May

31

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3