Faircloth v. Timme et al

Filing 143

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE denying 130 Motion for Summary Judgment and Adopting Report and Recommendations re 135 . By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 7/30/2015.(mlace, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03317-REB-KLM
JAMES FAIRCLOTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARQUEZ, Correctional Officer, in his individual capacity, and
TOM BENEZE, Lt., in his individual capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#135],1 filed June 24, 2015. No objections having been filed to the
recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding
no such error in the recommended disposition, I find and conclude that the magistrate
judge’s recommendation should be approved and adopted.

1

“[#135]” 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.
2

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. Nevertheless, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his
pleadings 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, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#135], filed
June 24, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; and
2. That defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#130], filed June 12,
2015, is denied without prejudice to refile after the stay is lifted
Dated July 30, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2