Davis v. U.S. Attorney General, et al

Filing 60

ORDER Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. It is Ordered that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 55 is APPROVED and ADOPTED. Ordered that the objections [#59] filed by the plaintiff are OVERRULED. Ordered that under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), the Defendants' Motion To Dismiss 46 is GRANTED. Ordered that under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), all claims alleged in the amended complaint [#17] of the plaintiff are DISMISSED. Ordered that under FED. R. CIV. P. 58, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Eric Holder, John ODonnall, Jason Zamaloff, and D. Berkebile, against the plaintiff, Alton Davis. Ordered 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 by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 03/14/14.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02122-REB-KMT
ALTON DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, et al.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss
[#46]1 filed April 4, 2013; and (2) the corresponding Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge [#55] filed February 10, 2014. The plaintiff filed objections
[#59] to the recommendation. I overrule the objections, approve and adopt the
recommendation, and grant the motion to dismiss.
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).

1

“[#46]” 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.

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. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw.
The plaintiff, Alton Davis, is an inmate in the custody of the United States Bureau
of Prisons. He is housed at the United States Penitentiary, Administrative Maximum in
Florence, Colorado (ADX). In his complaint, Mr. Davis alleges he is subject to certain
Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). The SAMs, Mr. Davis alleges, deny him his
right to communicate with family, friends, the press, and attorneys. He alleges the
SAMs deny him adequate access to the courts and subject him to harsh treatment in
solitary confinement. He contends he does not get sufficient fresh air, sunlight, and
diabetic food. In addition, Mr. Davis contends the SAMS cause him to be denied
adequate access to medical services and treatment for serious medical conditions,
bladder cancer and diabetes. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants seek dismissal
of all of the claims of Mr. Davis for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants and
because the allegations in the complaint do not state claims on which relief can be
granted against the defendants.
In the recommendation [#55], the magistrate judge provides a detailed and
thorough analysis of the issues raised in the motion to dismiss. Based on my de novo
review, I concur with the analysis of the magistrate judge. In his objections [#59], Mr.
Davis provides a detailed critique of the analysis of the magistrate judge and, to some
extent, the law applicable to SAMs. However, Mr. Davis does not raise arguments
which show that the analysis of the magistrate judge is incorrect. Therefore, I overrule
the objections of Mr. Davis and approve and adopt the recommendation of the
magistrate judge.
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#55] filed
February 10, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections [#59] filed by the plaintiff are OVERRULED;
3. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), the Defendants’ Motion To
Dismiss [#46] filed April 4, 2013, is GRANTED;
4. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), all claims alleged in the
amended complaint [#17] of the plaintiff are DISMISSED;
5. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 58, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the
defendants, Eric Holder, John O’Donnall, Jason Zamaloff, and D. Berkebile, against the
plaintiff, Alton Davis; and
6. 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.
Dated March 14, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3