Small v. Trani, et al

Filing 130

ORDER ADOPTING 111 RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Plaintiff's 109 Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/27/2015. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00292-REB-MJW
TYRON DUANTE SMALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
CANDANCE CROSLEY, Sgt.,
KEVIN CRUTCHER, Sgt., and
KYLE ROBERTS, Lt.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are: (1) the plaintiff’s filing captioned as Seeking An
Emergency Injuction [sic] Motion [#109]1 filed August 20, 2014; and (2) the
Recommendation on Plaintiff’s “Seeking an Emergency Injuction [sic] Motion”
(Docket No. 109) [#111] filed August 21, 2014. No objection to the recommendation
has been filed. Therefore, I review it for plain error only. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2

1

“[#109]” 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. In addition, 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)).

At the time the recommendation was filed, Mr. Small was acting pro se.
Therefore, I construe his filings generously and with the judicial munificence due pro se
litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
I perceive no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. As detailed by the magistrate judge, the plaintiff fails to show in his
motion that he can meet the heavy burden of proof necessary to obtain injunctive relief.
Thus, I find and conclude that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be
approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation on Plaintiff’s “Seeking an Emergency
Injuction [sic] Motion” (Docket No. 109) [#111] filed August 21, 2014, is APPROVED
AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; and
2. That the plaintiff’s filing captioned as Seeking An Emergency Injuction [sic]
Motion [#109] filed August 20, 2014, is DENIED.
Dated February 27, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2