Gatlin v. Holdridge et al

Filing 168

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 167 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment ECF No. 153 is GRANTED; Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim regarding the December 16, 2010 incident is DISMISSED WITHOUT PR EJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim regarding the February 9, 2010 incident. The parties shall bear their own costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 5/7/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-3004-WJM-KLM
ANTWAN OCIE GATLIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE BROWN, SR., Investigator,
JESSICA JARAMILLO, Correctional Officer,
STEVE BROWN, JR., Assistant Warden,
CHAD PENNER, Case Manager,
CHRIS DURGA, Correctional Officer,
PAUL DOSE, Shift Supervisor,
LARRY COX, Chief of Security,
JACK CHAPMAN, Hearings Disciplinary Officer, and
ELLEN HAARMANN, Correctional Counselor,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 4, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the April 4, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 167) that
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 153) be granted. The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 167, at 12.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and
sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report
under any standard it deems appropriate.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 167) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 153) is GRANTED;

(3)

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding the December 16, 2010 incident is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies; and

(4)

Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff with respect to
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim regarding the February 9, 2010 incident. The
parties shall bear their own costs.
Dated this 7th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
2