Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00802-CMA-KMT
02-28-2012
JOHN MICHAEL BROADUS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RAE TIMME, LIEUTENANT JACKIE McCALL, LIEUTENANT DIRECTO, SERGEANT ERPS, SERGEANT DAVIES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HOLESTEAD, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER McCALL, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SNIDER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOPEZ, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STRICKLETT, and ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Defendants.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 30, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 15.) On January 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 75) concerning the motions to dismiss filed by Defendant Erps (Doc. # 52), Defendant Directo (Doc. # 57), and Defendants Zavaras, Timme, Lieutenant McCall, Correctional Officer McCall, Davies, Holestead, Snider, Lopez, and Stricklett (collectively, "the CDOC Defendants") (Doc. # 59), as well as Plaintiff's "Motion to Seek Leave" to file a second amended complaint (Doc. # 63). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the three motions to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff's motion be denied without prejudice. (Doc. # 75 at 25.) Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 76.)
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. Accordingly, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including carefully reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff's Objections to the Recommendation.
Based on the Court's de novo review, the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation as correct and finds that it is not called into question by Plaintiff's Objections.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 75) filed January 30, 2012, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. # 76), filed February 16, 2012, are OVERRULED.
3. Pursuant to the Recommendation:
a. Defendant Erps's "Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED.
b. Defendant Directo's "Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. # 57) is GRANTED.
c. CDOC Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Prisoner Complaint" (Doc. # 59) is GRANTED.
d. Plaintiff's "Motion to Seek Leave" (Doc. # 63) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. Plaintiff may re-file his motion for leave to file a seconded amended complaint so as to attempt to cure the deficiencies of his "Motion to Seek Leave" (Doc. # 63), as noted in the Recommendation.
BY THE COURT:
____________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge