Ghailani v. Holder et al

Filing 70

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 58 November 3, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge That All Claims Be Dismissed: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 35 ) is GRANTED and the claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. # 64 ) is OVERRULED. The case is dismissed in its entirety. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 01/30/2015. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00041-CMA-BNB
AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI, Individually,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, US ATTORNEY GENERAL,
US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, SDNY,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, and
DAVID BERKEBILE, ADX Warden,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 3, 2014
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THAT ALL CLAIMS BE DISMISSED
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 31.) On November 3,
2014, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
(Doc. # 58.) In that Recommendation, Judge Boland recommended that the Court grant
Defendants’ Motion to dismiss all claims. (Id.) On December 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
timely objection to Judge Boland’s Recommendation. (Doc. # 64.) On January 16,
2015, Defendants filed a Response to Plaintiff’s objection. (Doc. # 68.)
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part

of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected
to.” In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
As required by 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review
of this matter, including carefully reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff=s objection, and Defendants’ response. Based on this
de novo review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Boland’s Report and
Recommendation is correct and is not called into question by Plaintiff=s objection.
Plaintiff raises several objections that merely reiterate arguments that were
before Magistrate Judge Boland at the time his Recommendation issued. For instance,
Plaintiff’s extended, yet reiterated, challenge to 28 C.F.R. § 501.3 fails as he does not
“establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” U.S.
v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987). Although his objections do not trigger de novo
review, the Court has nonetheless conducted a de novo review of this matter. Based
on this de novo review, the Court concludes that Judge Boland’s Recommendation
is correct and is not called into question by Plaintiff’s objections.
Further, with regard to Plaintiff’s new argument that the “Turner 1 standard should
not apply to a claim where [a Special Administrative Measures] restriction directly
prohibits religious act,” the Court perceives no error. Plaintiff contends that applying the
Turner standard “would allow prison officials to use religious-based restrictions even
1

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

2

when there are religious-neutral restrictions to accomplish the same goal.” The Turner
test recognizes that constitutional rights can be limited during incarceration without
violating the United States Constitution. O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342,
348 (1987). To the extent Plaintiff points out that his claims five and six should be
dismissed, the Court agrees. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are unavailing and the
Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Boland’s well-reasoned analysis.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 64) is
OVERRULED, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 58) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this
Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 35) is
GRANTED and the claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the case is dismissed in its entirety.
DATED: January

30

, 2015
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3