Crow v. James

Filing 45

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 39 Report and Recommendations: 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and this case is dismissed, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/16/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02290-CMA-MEH
RICHARD CROW,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. J. A. JAMES, (DRDC), and
UNKNOWN JOHN DOE, Medical Staff (at DRDC),
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING SEPTEMBER 10, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 14.) On September 10,
2012, Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation, advising that Defendant James’s
Motion for Summary Judgment “be granted” and that “Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment
claim against Defendant James be dismissed with prejudice.” (Doc. # 39 at 13
(emphasis deleted).) Plaintiff subsequently filed a “Motion to Response / Reply” (Doc.
# 44), which the Court construes as an objection to Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation.
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”
In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.

In the instant case, Plaintiff does not “properly object[]” to any part of the
Recommendation. Instead, he reiterates arguments that were properly before the
Magistrate Judge at the time his Recommendation issued. Nonetheless, the Court has
conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing all relevant pleadings,
the Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objection thereto. Based on this de novo review,
the Court concludes that Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation is correct and is not called
into question by Plaintiff’s objection.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 44) is
OVERRULED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 39) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this
Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant James’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 33) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant
James is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Plaintiff’s claim against
Defendant Unknown John Doe is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
As such, the case is hereby DISMISSED as specified above.
DATED: November

16 , 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2