Sarno v. Reilly et al

Filing 66

ORDER granting 57 Motion for Summary Judgment and adopting Report and Recommendations re 65 . JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/11/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00280-REB-KLM
GEORGE D. SARNO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN REILLY,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following:(1) the Motion for Summary
Judgment [#57]1 of defendant John Reilly, filed December 12, 2013; and (2) the
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#65] filed July 22, 2014.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings and other
filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
Because no objection to the recommendation was filed, I review the
recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &

1

“[#57]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much
less plain error, in the recommendation of the magistrate judge, I find and conclude that
the recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court.
The plaintiff, George Sarno, is incarcerated at the Limon Correctional Facility
(LCF), a part of the Colorado Department of Corrections. According to Mr. Sarno, he
was employed for many years and in various capacities at LCF. In his complaint,
he alleges a series of events involving a disciplinary charge against him, the loss of his
job, and his removal from a living unit known as the incentive living unit. Based on
these and other factual allegations, Mr. Sarno asserted a procedural due process claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment, an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment, and a retaliation claim, apparently asserting a violation of the First
Amendment. On March 20, 2013, all claims against former defendants Donald
Brightwell and Dino Williams were dismissed, and all claims against defendant John
Reilly were dismissed, except for the equal protection and retaliation claims against him
in his individual capacity for nominal and punitive damages and in his official capacity
for prospective injunctive relief. Order [#33]. These remaining claims against Mr. Reilly
are at issue in the motion for summary judgment [#57].
In the recommendation [#65], the magistrate judge analyzes the remaining
claims and the motion for summary judgment [#57] in detail. The analysis, conclusions,
and recommendation of the magistrate judge are well circumstantiated. Thus, I approve
and adopt the recommendation.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#65] filed
July 22, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2

2. That the Motion for Summary Judgment [#57] of defendant John Reilly,
filed December 12, 2013, is GRANTED;
3. That based on this order and the Order Adopting Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#33] filed March 20, 2013, JUDGMENT SHALL
ENTER in favor of the defendants, John Reilly, Donald Brightwell, and Dino Williams,
against the plaintiff, George D. Sarno, on each claim alleged by the plaintiff in his First
Amended Prisoner Complaint [#18] filed April 3, 2012;
4. That the defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the clerk of the
court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and
5. That this case is CLOSED.
Dated August 11, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3