Aragon v. Erlanger et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 34 Motion to Dismiss; adopting Report and Recommendations re 51 Report and Recommendations, granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion to Dismiss, by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 6/2/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01726-RBJ-BNB
RUBEN ARAGON,
Plaintiff,
v.
HILLEL ERLANGER,1
GUY EDMONDS,
MITCHELL BUTTERFIELD,
RHONDA FUNSTON, and
JEFFREY HILL,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAY 5, 2014 RECOMMENDATIONS
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the April 30, 2014 Recommendation [ECF No. 51] of
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland that the Court grant in part and deny in part the two motions to
dismiss filed by the defendants. [ECF Nos. 30 and 34.] The Recommendation is incorporated
herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. [ECF No. 51 at 17
n.5.] Despite this advisement, 32 days have passed since the magistrate judge issued the
recommendation, and neither party has filed an objection. “In the absence of timely objection,
the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge’s] report under any standard it deems
appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn,
This defendant’s name previously appeared as Rosskamm Erlanger. The Court has since been advised
that his first name is in fact Hillel, and the docket sheet has been changed accordingly.
1

1

474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings”)).
The Court has reviewed all of the relevant pleadings concerning the motions to dismiss
and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the magistrate judge’s
very thorough analysis and recommendations are correct, and that “there is no clear error on the
face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court
ADOPTS the Recommendation as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [ECF No. 51] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendants’
motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 30 and 34] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART:
(1) GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent they seek dismissal of all claims
against defendants in their official capacities;
(2) GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE insofar as they seek to dismiss the RLUIPA claims;
(3) GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the extent they seek dismissal of Claim Two
against defendant Edmonds;
(4) GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE to the extent they seek dismissal of Claim Four
against defendant Funston for the kitchen violations and Claim Five against defendant Hill;
(5) DENIED insofar as they seek dismissal of Claim One against defendant Erlanger;
Claim Four against defendant Funston for causing the plaintiff to miss Passover; and Claim
Three against defendant Butterfield;
(6) GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as they seek dismissal of the plaintiff’s

2

request for compensatory damages as barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”);2
and
(7) DENIED as premature insofar as they seek dismissal of the plaintiff’s request for
punitive damages.3
Further, the Court hereby orders that the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief are DISMISSED as moot.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge

2

Even though the plaintiff may not seek compensatory damages without alleging a physical injury, he
will be entitled to nominal damages should it be found that his rights have been violated. Searles v. Van
Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 879 (10th Cir. 2001).
“[A]s a general rule, punitive damages may be recovered for constitutional violations without a showing
of compensable injury.” Searles, 251 F.3d at 880. In particular, the PLRA does not bar recovery of
punitive damages even when a prisoner is otherwise barred from seeking compensatory damages. Id. at
880–81.
3

3