Valles v. Mesa County Sheriff's Department

Filing 57

ORDER. The magistrate judges Recommendation On Motions To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) by Defendants (Docket No. 27) and Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 36) 54 filed 8/4/2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The Motions To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C iv.P. 12(b) by Defendants Carnes, Kean and Miller 27 filed 1/24/2011, is GRANTED. Defendant Geraldine Earthmans Motion To Dismiss 36 filed 2/10/2011, is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defen dants, B. Carnes, #195, W. Kean, Mike Miller, G. Earthman, David Arcady, and Mesa County Sheriffs Dept., against the plaintiff, Steven Anthony Valles. Defendants are AWARDED their costs. This case is CLOSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/19/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02454-REB–MJW
STEVEN ANTHONY VALLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
B. CARNES, #195,
W. KEAN,
MIKE MILLER, and
G. EARTHMAN,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Motions To Dismiss Pursuant
To F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) by Defendants Carnes, Kean and Miller [#27]1 filed January 24,
2011; (2) defendant Geraldine Earthman’s Motion To Dismiss [#36] filed February 10,
2011; and (3) the magistrate judge’s Recommendation On Motions To Dismiss
Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) by Defendants (Docket No. 27) and Motion To
Dismiss (Docket No. 36) [#54] filed August 4, 2011. No party has filed objections to
the recommendation. I approve and adopt the recommendation and grant both motions
to dismiss.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings and

1

“[#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.

other filings 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 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Because no party filed objections to the recommendation, I review the
recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez 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 approve and
adopt the recommendation.
The plaintiff’s complaint concerns a traffic stop, his arrest, and the alleged loss of
his property after his truck and the contents of the truck were seized by the police after
the arrest of the plaintiff. Addressing the motions to dismiss, the magistrate judge
details correctly the applicable legal standards and applies those standards correctly to
the plaintiff’s allegations. Based on this analysis, the magistrate judge’s
recommendation that the motions to dismiss be granted is correct. I note that in a
previous order [#7], the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against defendants David
Arcady, and the Mesa County Sheriffs Dept.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the magistrate judge’s Recommendation On Motions To Dismiss
Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) by Defendants (Docket No. 27) and Motion To
Dismiss (Docket No. 36) [#54] filed August 4, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as
an order of this court;

2

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

2

2. That the Motions To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) by Defendants
Carnes, Kean and Miller [#27] filed January 24, 2011, is GRANTED;
3. That defendant Geraldine Earthman’s Motion To Dismiss [#36] filed
February 10, 2011, is GRANTED;
4. That this case is DISMISSED with prejudice;
5. That judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, B. Carnes, #195,
W. Kean, Mike Miller, G. Earthman, David Arcady, and Mesa County Sheriffs Dept.,
against the plaintiff, Steven Anthony Valles, on all claims for relief and causes of action
asserted in the complaint [#4] filed November 3, 2010;
6. That 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
7. That this case is CLOSED.
Dated September 19, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3