Johnson v. Dash et al

Filing 83

ORDER adopting 68 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [#6] is DENIED as moot. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/3/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02400-REB-KMT
SHANE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUSTIN DASH, individually and in his official capacity as case manager;
DONNA ZAVISLAN, in her individual capacity as Warden and official capacity as
Warden;
DEBRA AHLIN, individually and in her official capacity as committee member;
JAMES OLSON, individually and in his official capacity as committee chairperson;
CARMEN ESTRADA, individually and in her official capacity as committee chairperson;
KATHLEEN BOYD, individually and in her official capacity as nurse practitioner;
DEPREIEST, individually, and in his official capacity as committee member, whose first
name is unknown; and
YVONE SARGENT, in her individual capacity as a CIPS Input operator,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law
in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [#6]1 filed September
10, 2012; and (2) the corresponding Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#68] filed June 14, 2013. The defendant filed objections [#71] to the
recommendation. I overrule the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation,
and deny the motion for preliminary injunction.

1

“[#6]” 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.

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).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the defendant objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law.
In his motion for preliminary injunction, the plaintiff, Shane Johnson, says he
suffers from acute hepatitis C and suffers serious daily pain as a result. He claims
defendant Kathleen Boyd, a nurse practitioner at the Colorado State Penitentiary, has
not provided him treatment for his condition. Appropriately, the magistrate judge reads
Mr. Johnson’s motion as seeking relief against Ms. Boyd. The magistrate judge
recommends that the motion for preliminary injunction be denied as moot because Mr.
Johnson was transferred to a different prison facility and no longer is under the care of
Ms. Boyd. I agree. After filing his motion for preliminary injunction, Mr. Johnson filed an
amended complaint [#70], but he has not filed another motion for preliminary injunction
which addresses his present circumstances.
Having reviewed the plaintiff’s motion, the recommendation, the plaintiff’s
objections, and the applicable law, I find and conclude that the analysis and conclusions
of the magistrate judge are correct. Thus, I approve and adopt the recommendation
and deny the motion.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#68] filed
2

June 14, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court; and
2. That the plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
a Preliminary Injunction [#6] filed September 10, 2012, is DENIED as moot.
Dated September 3, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3