Case v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 28

ORDER The Magistrate Judges November 6, 2014 Recommendation ECF No. 26 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs Objection ECF No. 27 is OVERRULED; Plaintiffs June 12, 2014 Request for Preliminary Injunction under Rule 56 (a) and ECF No. 5 is DENIED; Plaintiffs July 3, 2014 Request for Preliminary Injunction under Rule 56(a) and ECF No. 10 is DENIED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/31/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-1649-WJM-BNB
LONNIE DAVID CASE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s November
6, 2014 Recommendation (ECF No. 26) that two Motions for Preliminary Injunction1
filed by Plaintiff Lonnie David Case (ECF Nos. 5 & 10) be denied. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 26 at 3 n.3.) On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter addressed to Magistrate
Judge Boland stating that he was “formally objecting” to the findings in the
Recommendation, but providing no explanation of what his objections were. (ECF No.
27.) In addition to “formally objecting” to the Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Letter

1

The Motions were filed approximately three weeks apart but are identical in
form and substance. (See ECF Nos. 5 & 10.)

requests additional time to file more specific objections to the Recommendation due to
“some issues” at U.S.P. Florence that have made it difficult for Plaintiff to access some
of the facilities. (ECF No. 27 at 1.) Plaintiff does not describe the difficulties or issue at
the prison, and does not explain which facilities are unavailable to him. Plaintiff also
gives no hint as to what sort of more specific objections he would raise if given
additional time. (Id.) The Court notes that more than a month has passed since
Plaintiff’s letter was filed, and he is yet to supplement his objection.
As Plaintiff’s letter does not contain any specific objection to any of the findings
or conclusions in the Recommendation, the Court finds that de novo review is not
required.2 Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (requiring that the district judge “determine
de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommendation] that has been properly
objected to.”), with Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (in the
absence of a timely and specific objection, “the district court may review a magistrate . .
. [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.”). While the Court is
sympathetic to Plaintiff’s inability to access certain facilities at the prison, it has
reviewed the substance of Plaintiff’s Motions finds that, even if the Court allowed
Plaintiff additional time to file objections, there is nothing that he could include that
would entitle him to the relief he seeks. As the Magistrate Judge found in his
Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motions fall far short of meeting the standard for a
mandatory injunction.

2

The Court also finds that, if it were to employ de novo review, the outcome
would be the same. Plaintiff has plainly not shown an entitlement to mandatory
injunctive relief in this case.
2

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation and concludes that the Magistrate
Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the f ace
of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”); see also Summers, 927 F.2d at
1167.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s November 6, 2014 Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is
ADOPTED in its entirety;

2.

Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 27) is OVERRULED;

3.

Plaintiff’s June 12, 2014 Request for Preliminary Injunction under Rule 56(a) and
(b) (ECF No. 5) is DENIED;

4.

Plaintiff’s July 3, 2014 Request for Preliminary Injunction under Rule 56(a) and
(b) (ECF No. 10) is DENIED.
Dated this 31st day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3