Watson v. Cozza-Rhodes et al
Filing
44
Final JUDGMENT by Clerk re: 43 Order, by Clerk on 4/11/2014. (klyon, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01456-PAB-MJW
PIERRE TERRON O’NEAL WATSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
T.K. COZZA-RHODES, Warden,
DAN CLARK, Lieutenant,
ED VINCENT, Counselor,
JEFF GEORGE, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, and
MIRANDA AVALOS, Lieutenant,
Defendants.
FINAL JUDGMENT
In accordance with the orders filed during the pendency of this case, and
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the following Final Judgment is hereby entered.
Pursuant to the Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Docket
No. 43] of Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered on April 10, 2014, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael
J. Watanabe [Docket No. 39] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendants George, Cozza-Rhodes and Avalos’s Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies [Docket No.
33] is GRANTED and the claims against defendants JEFF GEORGE, T.K. COZZARHODES, and MIRANDA AVALOS are dismissed without prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that the claims against unserved defendants DAN CLARK and ED
VINCENT are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) on the
basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It is further
ORDERED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the defendants and
against the plaintiff. It is further
ORDERED that defendants T.K. COZZA-RHODES, DAN CLARK, ED VINCENT,
JEFF GEORGE, and MIRANDA AVALOS are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by
the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
It is further
ORDERED that this case is CLOSED.
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 11th day of April, 2014.
FOR THE COURT:
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK
By: s/
Kathy Preuitt-Parks
Kathy Preuitt-Parks
Deputy Clerk
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?