Wingfield v. Clark et al

Filing 57

ORDER approving and adopting 56 Report and Recommendations. Granting 45 Motion for Summary Judgment. Judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants. Defendants are AWARDED their costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/11/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00630-REB-KLM
JOSHUA E. WINGFIELD,
Plaintiff,
v.
S.O.R.T. SGT. CLARK,
S.O.R.T. DEPUTY BRIESKE,
S.O.R.T. DEPUTY REID,
S.O.R.T. DEPUTY WOODS, and
FOUR UNKNOWN S.O.R.T. DEPUTIES, under Sgt. Clarks [sic] command on 2-23-11
who participated in the use force
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment on Complaint [#45]1 filed May 14, 2012; and (2) the Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#56] filed September 4, 2012. I approve and adopt
the recommendation and grant the motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I construe his filings generously and with
the leniency due pro se litigants, 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. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v.

1

“[#45]” 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.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
Because the plaintiff did not file objections to the recommendation, I review it
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 recommended disposition of this case, I find and conclude that the
recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court.
In his compliant [#1], the plaintiff alleges that the defendants used excessive
force against the plaintiff while the plaintiff was incarcerated in the Arapahoe County
Detention Facility. In their motion for summary judgment [#45], the defendants present
evidence demonstrating the nature of the incident in question. The plaintiff did not
respond to the motion for summary judgment. However, when considering the motion
for summary judgment, the magistrate judge considered, appropriately, the plaintiff’s
sworn compliant [#1] as part of the relevant body of evidence. Viewing all of the
evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable finder of
fact could find in favor of the plaintiff on any of his claims. The defendants are entitled
to summary judgment.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#15] filed
May 4, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That Defendants’ Motion For Summary Judgment [#45] filed May 14, 2012
is GRANTED;
3. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 58, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the

2

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

2

defendants, S.O.R.T. Sgt. Clark, S.O.R.T. Deputy Brieske, S.O.R.T. Deputy Reid,
S.O.R.T. Deputy Woods, and the Four Unknown S.O.R.T. Deputies under Sgt Clarks
[sic] command on 2-23-11 who participated in the use force, and against the plaintiff,
Joshua E. Wingfield, on all claims asserted in the complaint [#1]; and
4. 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.
Dated January 11, 2013 at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3