Jones v. Allen et al

Filing 48

ORDER: Recommendation 47 is ADOPTED in its entirety. That 32 is GRANTED as to all claims excepting only a portion of Claim Three, that portion to which the motion is DENIED being that portion of Claim Three which alleges a denial of a neurostimulator for pain therapy. Motion to Dismiss 31 is GRANTED. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction 42 is GRANTED. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/30/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02167-RM-KMT
BRUCE W. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. JEFFREY ALLEN, individually and in his official capacity, Chief Health Programs, Health
Services Division, Washington, D.C., North Central Region, Kansas City, Kansas,
LISA GREGORY, individually and in her official capacity, Regional Health Services
Administrator, North Central Regional Office, Kansas City, Kansas,
ALLYSON ALVARADO, individually and in her official capacity, Health Services
Administrator, Federal Correctional Institute, Florence,
LT. CIMAROSSA, Individually and in her Official Capacity, Acting Asst. Health Services
Health Administrator, Federal Correctional Institute, Florence,
LT. CIMAROSSA, Individually and in her Official Capacity, Acting Asst. Health Services
Health Administrator, Federal Correctional Institute, Florence,
GEORGE SANTINI, individually and in his official capacity, Staff Physician, Federal
Correctional Institute, Florence,
ALICIA VINYARD, individually and in her official Capacity, Medical Secretary, Federal
Correctional Institute, Florence,
GILBERTA TRUJILLO, individually and in her official capacity, Medical Secretary, Federal
Correctional Institute, Florence,
P. RANGEL, individually and in his official capacity, Associate Warden, Federal Correctional
Institute, Florence, and
JAMES PELTON, individually and in his official capacity, Acting Clinical Director, Federal
Correctional Institute, Florence,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen Tafoya’s
Recommendation (ECF No. 47) for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against certain defendants for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim, for dismissal of claims against
1

other defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, and for summary judgment in favor of certain
defendants on most claims against them.
The background in this matter, including both the procedural history and background of
the case set forth in the Recommendation and will not be repeated in this Order. Briefly
summarized, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Florence,
Colorado. While there, Plaintiff experienced serious medical difficulties. In connection with the
responses and lack of response to those difficulties by the Defendants, Plaintiff asserted three
claims for relief based on alleged Eighth Amendment violations. Plaintiff sought both injunctive
relief and damages. Plaintiff’s claims were asserted against (i) Defendants Allen and Gregory
who were not staff at FCI Florence, but rather officials with the United States Public Health
Service assigned to the Kansas City, Kansas office, and (ii) against the remaining defendants (the
“FCI Defendants”) who worked in various capacities at FCI Florence. The FCI Defendants
responded by Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) and Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
32). Defendants Allen and Gregory responded by Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (ECF No. 42).
The Recommendation advised the parties that objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations were required to be filed within fourteen days of service. No objections were
filed by any party within fourteen days, and no objections have been filed by any party to date.
In such circumstances, “the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it
deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citations omitted);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee's Note (“When no timely objection is filed, the

2

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.”).
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and underlying motions and responses.
The Court is convinced that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis is thorough and sound and that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Recommendation (ECF No. 47) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Consequently, as stated in the Recommendation, the Defendants’ motions are resolved as
follows:
1. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction;
2. Defendants Alvarado, Cimarossa, Santini, Vineyard, Trujilo, and Pelton’s “Motion for
Summary Judgment Regarding Unexhausted Claims” (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED as to
all claims excepting only a portion of Claim Three, that portion to which the motion is
DENIED being that portion of Claim Three which alleges a denial of a neurostimulator
for pain therapy;
3. Defendants Alvarado, Cimarossa, Santini, Vineyard, Trujillo, and Pelton’s “Motion to
Dismiss” (ECF. No. 31) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s Bivens claims for monetary damages against the FCI Defendant in their
official capacities is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
b. Defendants Alvarado and Cimarossa are dismissed from this civil action on
absolute immunity grounds;

3

c. Plaintiff’s remaining Claim Three against the FCI Defendants for Eighth
Amendment violations is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted; and
d. The FCI Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in their individual
capacities.
4. Defendants Allen and Gregory’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
(ECF No. 42) is GRANTED; and
5. This case is dismissed in its entirety.
DATED this 30th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

4