Huffman v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 153

ORDER AFFIRMING 12/8/11 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE denying 80 Emergency Injuction Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court; adopting 140 Report and Recommendations.; denying without prejudice 152 Motion for Order titled Response to Government Response - Obstruction of Justice, Reconsideration of Reommendation of Judge Mix, Plaintiff's Objection to Judge Mix Future Adjudication, Plaintiff's Motion for Perjury Charges. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/28/2011.(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.
“BUREAU OF PRISONS UNNAMED AGENTS” and
DIRECTOR HARVEY LAPPIN,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING DECEMBER 8, 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 December 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge
issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 140), in which she recommended that Plaintiff’s
“Emergency Injunction Motion to Find Defendants in Contempt of Court” (Doc. # 80) be
denied. On December 21, 2011, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion that
included one paragraph objecting to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.1 (Doc. #
152 at 7.)

1 Plaintiff’s filing includes several other requests for relief that are unrelated to the Magistrate
Judge’s December 8, 2011 Recommendation. The filing includes a response to the
government’s motion, an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, a motion for
perjury charges, and a request that the Magistrate Judge recuse herself. Plaintiff may not
combine all of these matters into one motion. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks additional
relief beyond reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court denies the
motion without prejudice because it improperly combines unrelated requests and is
unintelligible. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1H.

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires that the district court judge “determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommendation] that has been properly
objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. R. 72(b)(3). An objection is properly made if it is both timely
and specific. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property Known As 2121 East 30th
St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (“a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de
novo review by the district court”). An objection is sufficiently specific if it “enables the
district judge to focus attention on those issues – factual and legal – that are at the heart
of the parties’ dispute.” Id. (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985)).
In his one paragraph of objections, Plaintiff alleges that Magistrate Judge Mix
rushed to judgement, that her decision lacks any reasonable understanding of the
issues, and that she was prejudiced in favor of Defendants. (Doc. # 152 at 7.) These
objections are not sufficiently specific to require the Court to conduct a de novo review.
In the absence of specific objections, the Court applies whatever standard of review it
determines appropriate. Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.
1991).
The Court has carefully reviewed all relevant pleadings concerning Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Based
on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is
correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72

2

advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s “Emergency Injunction Motion to
Find Defendants in Contempt of Court” (Doc. # 80) be DENIED. To the extent that
Plaintiff’s objections contain additional requests for relief, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 152)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED: December 28, 2011
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3