Bomprezzi v. Kaprivnikar

Filing 73

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 47 is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court; The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 60 is APPROVED and A DOPTED as an order of this court; The plaintiff's objection 58 is OVERRULED; The plaintiff's filing captioned "Stop Dr. Kaprivnikar Now!" 26 read as a motion for preliminary injunction, is DENIED; The plaintiff's Summary Judgment Request in the Plaintiff's Favor 39 is DENIED; The defendant's Motion To Dismiss 44 is DENIED as to the plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim and is GRANTED as to the plaintiff's Thirteenth Am endment claim, the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim, and the plaintiff's substantive due process claim, and those claims are DISMISSED; The plaintiff's motion captioned "Addition of Two More Defendants & Appeal to Lewis Babcock on Slavery Issue and Involuntary Intoxication" 54 is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/18/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03344-REB-MEH
MEL BOMPREZZI,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. JOAN KAPRIVNIKAR,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the plaintiff’s filing captioned “Stop
Dr. Kaprivnikar Now!” [#26]1 filed March 29, 2012; (2) the plaintiff’s Summary
Judgment Request in the Plaintiff’s Favor [#39] filed April 27, 2012; (3) the
defendant’s Motion To Dismiss [#44] filed May 14, 2012; (4) the Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#47] filed May 14, 2012; (5) the plaintiff’s filing
captioned “Addition of Two More Defendants & Appeal to Lewis Babcock on
Slavery Issue and Involuntary Intoxication” [#54] filed June 15, 2012; and (6) the
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#60] filed August 3, 2012.
The plaintiff filed a document [#58] which I read as an objection to the May 14, 2012,
recommendation [#47]. No objections were filed addressing the August 3, 2012,

1

“[#26]” is an exam ple of the convention I use to identify the docket num ber assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case m anagem ent and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

recommendation [#60].
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
May 14, 2012, recommendation [#47] to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered
carefully the recommendations, the objections, and the applicable case law. No
objections to the August 3, 2012, recommendation [#60] recommendation were filed.
Thus, I review that recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding
no error, much less plain error, in the disposition recommended by the magistrate
judge, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted
as an order of this court.
The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I construe his filings generously and with
the leniency due pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
The plaintiff is an inmate at the San Carlos Correctional Facility. He alleges that
he is being involuntarily medicated with anti-psychotic drugs. In his complaint, he seeks
relief requiring the defendant to stop the involuntary medication of the plaintiff.
Appropriately, the magistrate judge reads the plaintiff’s filing captioned “Stop Dr.
Kaprivnikar Now!” [#26] filed March 29, 2012, as a motion for preliminary injunction.
In the recommendations, the magistrate judge applies the correct standards to the
motion for preliminary injunction, the motion to dismiss, and the motion for summary
judgment. Applying those standards, the magistrate judge recommends that the motion

2

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this m atter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.

2

for preliminary injunction and the motion for summary judgment be denied. The
magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied
in part. These recommendations are correct.
Finally, on June 15, 2012, the plaintiff filed his motion captioned “Addition of
Two More Defendants & Appeal to Lewis Babcock on Slavery Issue and
Involuntary Intoxication” [#54] filed June 15, 2012. In this motion, the plaintiff seeks
to add two additional defendants to this case, and asks that Senior United States
District Judge Lewis T. Babcock review the slavery issue raised by the plaintiff in many
of his filings. Given the current status of this case, I conclude that the plaintiff has not
demonstrated good cause to amend his complaint. FED . R. CIV. P. 15. The magistrate
judge properly has reviewed the slavery issue raised by the plaintiff. There is no valid
basis on which the plaintiff can seek review of this issue by a judge not assigned to this
case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#47] filed
May 14, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#60] filed
August 3, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
3. That the plaintiff’s objection [#58] filed July 16, 2012, is OVERRULED;
4. That the plaintiff’s filing captioned “Stop Dr. Kaprivnikar Now!” [#26] filed
March 29, 2012, read as a motion for preliminary injunction, is DENIED;
5. That the plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Request in the Plaintiff’s Favor
[#39] filed April 27, 2012, is DENIED;
6. That the defendant’s Motion To Dismiss [#44] filed May 14, 2012, is
3

DENIED as to the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim;
7. That under FED . R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the defendant’s Motion To Dismiss [#44]
filed May 14, 2012, is GRANTED as to the plaintiff’s Thirteenth Amendment claim, the
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, and the plaintiff’s substantive due process claim,
and those claims are DISMISSED;
8. That the plaintiff’s motion captioned “Addition of Two More Defendants &
Appeal to Lewis Babcock on Slavery Issue and Involuntary Intoxication” [#54] filed
June 15, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated March 15, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4