Ali v. Clements et al

Filing 50

ORDER Overruling Objections to and Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The recommendation contained within the Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge [# 47 ] is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this c ourt. The objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate's Recommendation Pursuant to Fed. R. Civil P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) [# 49 ] are OVERRULED. Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6 ) [# 29 ] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 [# 27 ] is DENIED. Plaintiff's claims against defendants, in both their official and individual capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Judgment without prejudice SHALL ENTER. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/2/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02027-REB-CBS
JAHAD ALI # 56036,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELE WINGERT, and
BERNADETTE SCOTT,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the recommendation contained within the
Recommendation and Order of United States Magistrate Judge [#47],1 filed
November 19, 2013; and (2) Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate’s
Recommendation Pursuant to Fed. R. Civil P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) [#49],
filed December 4, 2013. I overrule plaintiff’s objections, approve and adopt the
recommendation, and grant defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff is proceeding 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,
1

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

935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21
(1972)).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed. Thus, I have considered carefully
the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. The recommendation is
detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s objections are imponderous and
without merit. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how his complaint in fact states specific facts
evincing a “distinct and palpable” injury sufficient to invoke his constitutional right of
access to the courts. See Smith v. Maschner, 899 F.2d 940, 944 (10th Cir. 1990).
Moreover, as set forth in the recommendation, there is wide agreement in the federal
courts that prison policies requiring prisoners to use committed names in addition to
their religious names on mail do not violate an inmate’s constitutional right of religious
freedom.2 (See Recommendation at 10-11 (citing cases).) Finally, the magistrate
judge correctly determined that plaintiff’s conclusory allegations regarding the causal
link between plaintiff’s protected activity and defendants’ actions were insufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief.
Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited,
and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the
magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.

2

The court fully credits plaintiff’s assertion that his religious name is an important part of his
religious expression. Nevertheless, nothing in the Amended Complaint suggests that he has been
deprived of the right to use that name. Instead, the prison’s regulations only prohibit plaintiff from using
that name exclusively on his outgoing mail.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the recommendation contained within the Recommendation and Order
of United States Magistrate Judge [#47], filed November 19, 2013, is APPROVED
and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate’s
Recommendation Pursuant to Fed. R. Civil P. 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) [#49],
filed December 4, 2013, are OVERRULED;
3. That defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
[#29], filed May 6, 2013, is GRANTED;
4. That plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 [#27], filed April 25, 2013, is DENIED;
5. That plaintiff’s claims against defendants, in both their official and individual
capacities, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
6. That judgment without prejudice SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendants,
Michele Wingert and Bernadette Scott, in both their official and individual capacities,
and against plaintiff, Jahad Ali, on all claims for relief and causes of action asserted in
this action.
Dated January 2, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3