Archuleta v. Archuletta et al

Filing 60

ORDER: 59 Report and Recommendation is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED; 23 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Jury Demand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 3/21/17. (jdyne, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No 15-cv-02664-RBJ
PETE ARCHULETA,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOU ARCHULETTA, in his individual capacity,
FRANCIS FALK, in her individual capacity,
TRAVIS TRANI, in his individual capacity, and
RICK RAEMISCH, in his official capacity,
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 23], as
supplemented [ECF No. 56], and the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
[ECF No. 59]. Her 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. 59 at 21–22.
Despite these advisements, and permitting additional time for service and filing due to possible
delays, neither party filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Wang’s Recommendation. “In the
absence of timely objection, 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).

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s Recommendation and concludes that
her 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.
ORDER
1. The Magistrate Judge Tafoya’s February 27, 2017 Recommendation [ECF No. 59] is
AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Jury Demand [ECF No. 23], as
supplemented [ECF No. 56], is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
3. Accordingly, the Court dismisses with prejudice plaintiff’s First Amendment claim for
monetary damages against Defendant Raemisch, and dismisses without prejudice plaintiff’s First
Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Trani related to plaintiff’s initial placement in
the Residential Treatment Program. See ECF No. 59 at 10, 15–16. Plaintiff’s other First
Amendment claim against Defendant Trani, related to plaintiff’s placement in the administrative
segregation step down program, as well as plaintiff’s First Amendment claims against the other
defendants, survive defendants’ motion to dismiss.
DATED this 21st day of March, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

___________________________________
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge