Opinion
Civil Case No. 10-cv-01478-REB-CBS
09-19-2011
JONATHAN ESTES, Plaintiff, v. DOCTOR J. G. FORTUNATO, CAPTAIN NEGLEY, and J. MOON, OPTOMETRIST ELRID, Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) defendants Fortunato and Negley's Motion To Dismiss [#41] filed December 13, 2010; (2) defendant Moon's Motion To Dismiss [#57] filed February 14, 2011; and (3) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#71] filed August 9, 2011. On August 23, 2022, the plaintiff filed an objection [#72] to the recommendation. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, grant the motions to dismiss, and dismiss this case.
"[#41]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed and I have considered carefully the recommendation, the objection, and the applicable caselaw.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings and other filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. I approve and adopt the recommendation as an order of this court.
The plaintiff, Jonathan Estes, brings three claims in his amended complaint [#37]. In his first claim, he alleges that defendants, J.G. Fortunato and Optometrist Elrid, deprived Estes of his "Eighth Amendment right to due process" when these defendants were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's serious medical need. Amended complaint [#37], p. 2 of 8. This claim concerns treatment of a vision problem experienced by the plaintiff. In his second claim, the plaintiff alleges that, defendant J. Moon, violated the plaintiff's rights by rejecting, withholding, inspecting, and destroying the plaintiff's legal mail. In his third claim, the plaintiff claims that defendant, Captain Negley, violated the plaintiff's rights when Captain Negley denied certain grievances filed by the plaintiff. Addressing the defendants' motions to dismiss, the magistrate judge details correctly the applicable legal standards and applies those standards correctly to the plaintiff's allegations. Based on this analysis, the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motions to dismiss be granted is correct.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#71] filed August 9, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in The Plaintiff's Timely Filed Objection To Recommendation Order [#72] filed August 23, 2011, are OVERRULED;
3. That the Motion To Dismiss [#41] filed December 13, 2010, by defendants, Fortunato and Negley, is GRANTED;
4. That the Motion To Dismiss [#57] filed February 14, 2011, by defendant, Moon, is GRANTED;
5. That this case is DISMISSED with prejudice;
6. That judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Doctor J. G. Fortunato, Captain Negley, J. Moon, and Optometrist Elrid, against the plaintiff, Jonathan Estes, as to all claims for relief and causes of action asserted in the amended complaint [#37] filed November 3, 2010;
7. That defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and
8. That this case is CLOSED.
Dated September 19, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Robert E. Blackbum
United States District Judqe