Summary
holding the PLRA bars claims for compensatory damages, "but does not affect claims for nominal damages, punitive damages, and declaratory or injunctive relief."
Summary of this case from Clifton v. EubankOpinion
Civil Case No. 03-cv-015753-REB-OES.
September 27, 2005
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The matters before are (1) the magistrate judge's Recommendation and Order [#88], filed August 11, 2005; and (2) Defendants' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 12(b)(6) [#90], filed August 22, 2005. Although plaintiff was granted an extension of time in which to file objections to the recommendation, and I have afforded ample time for any such document to make its way through the prison mail system, no objections have been filed as of this date.
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 have considered carefully the recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law. The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Defendant's objections, which hinge on the possibility that I might not adopt the entirety of the recommendation, are moot. Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
Moreover, because plaintiff has filed no timely objection, I also have reviewed the recommendation for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). I find no such error in the magistrate judge's recommended disposition.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1) That the magistrate judge's Recommendation and Order [#88], filed August 11, 2005, recommending that defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) [#55], filed October 20, 2004, and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [58], filed October 20, 2004, be granted in part and denied in part as articulated therein, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
(2) That Defendants' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 12(b)(6) [#90], filed August 22, 2005, is OVERRULED AS MOOT;
(3) That plaintiff's Claim Two is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE insofar as it alleges a violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion;
(4) That the remainder of plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
(5) That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of all defendants, including those who have not been served, and against plaintiff.