Mares v. Raemisch et al
ORDER adopting 68 and 73 Report and Recommendations; granting 32 Motion to Dismiss; granting 37 Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 65 Motion to Grant Visitation; finding as moot 70 Motion to Enter Evidence; finding as moot 74 Motion for the United States District Court to Investigate C.D.O.C. on Perjury and Discrimination; finding as moot 75 Motion to submit Evidence on Perjury and Discrimination; finding as moot 76 Motion to Add Evi dence on Reply to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ; finding as moot 78 Motion to Add Evidence to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Investigate C.D.O.C. on Perjury and Discrimination. by Judge R. Brooke Jackson on 2/17/17. (jdyne, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge R. Brooke Jackson
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00615-RBJ-NYW
LEONARD A. MARES,
RICK RAEMISCH, Executive Director, P.P.M.U.,
RUIZ, Mrs., Case Manager,
GONZALES, Mrs., Case Manager, and
LOPEZ, Mr., Case Manager,
This matter is before the Court on two Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Nina Y.
Wang dated July 19, 2016 [ECF No. 68] and August 25, 2016 [ECF No. 73]. The former
addresses plaintiff’s motion to grant visitation [ECF No. 65], while the latter addresses defendant
Rick Raemisch’s combined motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and partial motion
for summary judgment [ECF No. 32] and defendants Ruiz, Gonzales, and Lopez’s motion to
dismiss and for partial summary judgment [ECF No. 37]. The Recommendations are
incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendations advised the parties that specific written objections were due
within fourteen days after being served with a copy of each Recommendation. ECF No. 68 at 4–
5 n.1; ECF No. 73 at 14 n.6. Despite these advisements, and permitting additional time for
service and filing due to possible delays associated with the prison mail system, no objection to
Magistrate Judge Wang’s Recommendations were filed by either party. “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 both Recommendations and concludes that Magistrate Judge
Wang’s analyses 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
Recommendations as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
1. The Magistrate Judge’s July 19, 2016 Recommendation [ECF No. 68] is AFFIRMED
2. The Magistrate Judge’s August 25, 2016 Recommendation [ECF No. 73] is
AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Grant Visitation [ECF No. 65] is DENIED.
4. Defendant Rick Raemisch’s Combined Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint (Doc. #28) and Partial Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED.
Mr. Mares’ claims for monetary damages against Defendant Raemisch in his official capacity are
dismissed with prejudice, and his remaining claims against Defendant Raemisch are dismissed
5. Motion to Dismiss and Partial Motion for Summary Judgment from Defendants Ruiz,
Gonzales and Lopez [ECF No. 37] is GRANTED. Mr. Mares’ claims against Defendants Ruiz,
Gonzales, and Lopez are dismissed without prejudice.
6. Motion to Enter Evidence [ECF No. 70], Motion for the United States District Court
to Investigate C.D.O.C. on Perjury and Discrimination [ECF No. 74], Motion to Submit
Evidence on Perjury and Discrimination [ECF No. 75], Motion to Add Evidence on Reply to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 76], and Motion to Add Evidence to Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Investigate C.D.O.C. for Perjury and Discrimination [ECF No.
78] are denied as MOOT.
7. Accordingly, this civil action and all claims therein are dismissed, with or without
prejudice as noted. As the prevailing parties, defendants are awarded their reasonable costs
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. Final judgment will enter
DATED this 17th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
R. Brooke Jackson
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?