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, )

Download PDF
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

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?