Brown v. Tiona et al

Filing 115

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#112] filed July 27, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; The objections [#113] of the plaintiff are overruled; The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant To Rule 56 [#92] filed October 14, 2014, is granted; Judgment shall enter in favor the defendants, Idaho Correctional Center, Warden Timothy Wengler, Assistant Warden Tom Kessler, H.S.A. Acel K. Thacker, CCHP, Dr. Kirk Stander, Dr. David Agler, Kit Carson Correctional Center, Warden Vance Everett, Assistant Warden Greg Wilkinson, Dr. Susan Tiona, H.S.A. Jodi Gray, and Corrections Corporation of America, against the plaintiff, Eric Brown; The defendants are awarded their costs to be taxed by the clerk of the court in the time and manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and This case is closed. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/8/15. (kfinn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01342-REB-KMT
ERIC BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
IDAHO CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
WARDEN TIMOTHY WENGLER,
ASSISTANT WARDEN TOM KESSLER,
H.S.A. ACEL K. THACKER, CCHP,
DR. KIRK STANDER,
DR. DAVID AGLER,
KIT CARSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
WARDEN VANCE EVERETT
ASSISTANT WARDEN GREG WILKINSON
DR. SUSAN TIONA,
H.S.A. JODI GRAY, and
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge [#112]1 filed July 27, 2015; and (2) the corresponding
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant To Rule 56 [#92] filed
October 14, 2014. The plaintiff filed objections [#113] to the recommendation. I
overrule the objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, and grant the motion

1

“[#112]” 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.

for summary judgment.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objections, the other filings in this case, and the applicable case
law.
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).
The plaintiff, Eric Brown, is an inmate in the custody of the Idaho Department of
Corrections (IDOC). Currently, he is housed at the Kit Carson Correctional Center
(KCCC) in Burlington, Colorado, a private prison operated by the Corrections
Corporation of America.
In his complaint [#25], plaintiff alleges claims under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to
adequately treat his migraine headaches. The plaintiff alleges three claims against the
defendants: (1) the defendants are preventing Mr. Brown from obtaining the proper
migraine medication and are causing long-term damages to his kidneys, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment; (2) the defendant have denied Mr. Brown equal protection
under the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because Colorado inmates
held at the Kit Carson Correction Center (KCCC) have access to an ADA Coordinater
who handles prisoner ADA issues, Idaho Department of Corrections’s (IDOC) inmates
at KCCC do not have a similar mechanism through which to address their ADA issues;

2

and (3) Mr. Brown was denied reasonable accommodation under the ADA when he was
prohibited from carrying a medication for migraine headaches on his person and was
denied an opportunity to wear tinted glasses or sunglasses indoors to alleviate his
migraines.
The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Addressing the
issues raised in the motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge concluded that
the motion for summary judgment should be granted. The magistrate judge correctly
applied the proper procedural and substantive standards in analyzing the motion for
summary judgement and carefully analyzed the undisputed facts evidenced in the
record and applied the relevant law. After de novo review, I concur with the analysis
and conclusions of the magistrate judge. The objections [#113] do not contain any valid
criticism of the analysis and conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thus, I overrule the
objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#112] filed
July 27, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court;
2. That the objections [#113] of the plaintiff are overruled;
3. That the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant To Rule
56 [#92] filed October 14, 2014, is granted;
4. That judgment shall enter in favor the defendants, Idaho Correctional Center,
Warden Timothy Wengler, Assistant Warden Tom Kessler, H.S.A. Acel K. Thacker,
CCHP, Dr. Kirk Stander, Dr. David Agler, Kit Carson Correctional Center, Warden
Vance Everett, Assistant Warden Greg Wilkinson, Dr. Susan Tiona, H.S.A. Jodi Gray,
and Corrections Corporation of America, against the plaintiff, Eric Brown;

3

5. That the defendants are awarded their costs to be taxed by the clerk of the
court in the time and manner prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and
D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and
6. That this case is closed.
Dated September 8, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4