Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 118

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 31, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 62 Motion for TRO; denying 64 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 74 Motion for TRO; adopting re 76 Report and Recommendations. Magistrate Judges Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Doc. 73 is AFFIRMED. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/21/2011.(jjpsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 11-cv-01459-CMA-KLM LORAL HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. “BUREAU OF PRISONS UNNAMED AGENTS” and DIRECTOR HARVEY LAPPIN, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 31, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. On October 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 75), in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s “Information for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. # 62), “Emergency Injunction” (Doc. # 64), and second “Information for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. # 74) be denied. The Magistrate Judge also ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. # 73) be denied. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has objected to this recommendation. (Doc. # 95.) In light of these objections, the Court has conducted the requisite de novo review of the issues, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objections.1 Plaintiff fails to raise any new issues of law or fact warranting a result different from that reached by the Magistrate Judge in her Recommendation. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s “Information for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 62), “Emergency Injunction” (Doc. # 64), and second “Information for Temporary Restraining Order” (Doc. # 74) be DENIED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. # 73) is AFFIRMED. DATED: November 21 , 2011 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Ju 1 Because Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal involves a nondispositive pretrial motion, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge’s ruling was “clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Having reviewed the objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order denying the motion to seal was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?