Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 119

AMENDED ORDER 118 ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 31, 2011 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/22/2011. (jjpsl, )

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.
DR. ALLRED,
DR. CARTER,
SANCHEZ, Case Manager,
DERR, United Manager,
JOHN DOE, Mailroom Supervisor,
JANE DOE, Food Supervisor,
BUCKNER, Investigator,
LINCOLN, D.H.D., and
CRANK, Trust Manager,
Defendants.

AMENDED 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 22 , 2011
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

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