Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01992-CMA-MJW
05-31-2012
SHAWN D. ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORP. OF AMERICA (a Private for Profit Corporation), J. GARY, N. ARREDONDO, LT. PHILLIPS, and C. BLAKE, Defendants.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAY 8, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to Unites States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 16.) On May 8, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 112) on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82) and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 87). The Magistrate Judge advised this Court to grant Defendants' Motion and to deny Plaintiff's Cross-Motion. (Doc. # 112 at 20.) Plaintiff filed Objections to the Recommendation on May 18, 2012 (Doc. # 118), to which Defendants responded on May 29, 2012. (Doc. # 119.)
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to." In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
In the instant case, Plaintiff does not "properly object[ ]" to any part of the Recommendation because he fails to challenge any specific factual finding or legal conclusion. Instead, his Objections consist of conclusory statements accusing the Magistrate Judge of "turn[ing] a blind eye to the facts" and asserting that the Magistrate Judge should have "been recused . . . [due to his] biased and bizarre recommendation." (Doc. # 118 at 1.) Therefore, Plaintiff's Objections do not trigger de novo review. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, carefully reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, Plaintiff's Objections to the Recommendation, and Defendants' Response thereto. Based on this de novo review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to be correct and further finds that the Recommendation is not called into question by Plaintiff's Objections.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Recommendation of the Unites States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 112), filed May 8, 2012, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. # 118) are OVERRULED.
3. Pursuant to the Recommendation:
a. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82) is GRANTED.
b. Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 87) is DENIED.
4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), any appeal from this order will not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status would be denied for the purpose of the appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal, he would be required to pay the full $455 appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days, in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
5. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
____________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge