Allen v. Figuera

Full title: EDWARD ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. FRED FIGUERA, CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Nov 4, 2008

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00137-ZLW-BNB (D. Colo. Nov. 4, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07-cv-00137-ZLW-BNB.

November 4, 2008

ORDER

ZITA WEINSHIENK, Senior District Judge

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Objection To Magistrate Judge Recommendation (Doc. No. 232). Plaintiff appears to object to the Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on October 15, 2008 (Recommendation) (Doc. No. 219) recommending denial of Plaintiff's "The Restatment [sic] Of Claims" (Doc. No. 134), which the Court has construed as a further motion to amend Plaintiff's claims. On October 29, 2008, before receiving Plaintiff's objection, the Court prematurely entered an Order affirming the Recommendation. Plaintiff's objection was timely filed later on October 29, 2008, and the Court now has considered it fully.

Plaintiff's objection fails to articulate any cognizable constitutional claims against the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC), Defendants Joe Ortiz, or Tom Jordan (collectively, CDOC Defendants). Plaintiff argues without any supporting legal authority that Defendants Ortiz and Jordan cannot be granted "any kind of immunity."¹ To the contrary, Defendants Ortiz and Jordan, both State employees, properly are dismissed in their official capacities based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.² Plaintiff further states that he has named the CDOC as a Defendant only because the CDOC "is the only one who can grant injunctive relief" and that "there are no claims against" the CDOC.³ However, the CDOC, as an agency of the State, is immune from suit, whether for monetary damages or injunctive relief, under the Eleventh Amendment. There can be no claim for injunctive relief against any State Defendant in this case. The Magistrate Judge properly denied Plaintiff's further request to amend his Complaint, and the Court, having reviewed the present objection and the Court's Order of October 29, 2008, concludes that the October 29, 2008, Order was properly entered. Accordingly, it is

1 Objection To Magistrate Judge Recommendation (Doc. No. 232).

2 See Ellis v. University of Kansas Medical Center, 163 F.3d 1186, 1196 (10^th Cir. 1999).

3 Objection To Magistrate Judge Recommendation (Doc. No. 232).

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection To Magistrate Judge Recommendation (Doc. No. 232) is overruled.