Perceval v. Robinson et al

Filing 49

ORDER: 38 Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/28/13. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01689-BNB-KMT
BRIAN PATRICK SPENSER PERCEVAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
GRAYSON ROBINSON, Sheriff,
MRS. ELAINE, HSA, and
JANE DOE I, Nurse,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Objections to Recommendations of United States
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland [Doc. #38], which I have construed as a Motion for
Reconsideration (the “Motion”). The Motion is DENIED.
The plaintiff filed his Amended Prisoner Complaint on August 23, 2012 [Doc. #9] (the
“Complaint”). The Complaint asserts five claims. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on September 26, 2012 [Doc. #17]. I recommended [Doc. #29] that the motion be
denied to the extent it sought dismissal of Claim One and granted insofar as it sought dismissal
of Claims Two, Three, Four, and Five.
Subsequently, all parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge.
On June 11, 2013, the district judge ordered [Doc. #33] that the case be assigned to me as the
presiding judge for all purposes pursuant to D.C.COLO.LcivR 72.2E and that my
Recommendation be treated, nunc pro tunc, as an order.

On June 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed “Plaintiff’s Objections to Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland” [Doc. #38] (“Plaintiff’s Objections”). On June
26, 2013, I construed Plaintiff’s Objections as a Motion for Reconsideration and ordered further
briefing [Doc. #42]. The matter is now fully briefed.
“Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error
or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the
facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already
addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id. (internal
citations omitted).
The plaintiff argues that he should be permitted to proceed on Claims Two and Three. In
doing so, he merely restates the facts alleged in his Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
Objections do not establish any of the necessary bases for reconsideration of my order.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider [Doc. #38] is DENIED.
Dated August 28, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

2