Opinion
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00918-LTB-MEH.
November 3, 2011
ORDER
This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on October 19, 2011 (Doc 32). Plaintiff has failed to file specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and is therefore barred from de novo review. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted as follows:
Plaintiff alleges three potential claims for relief: (1) an equal protection claim for Defendant's promulgation of revisions to a policy that give allegedly similarly situated inmates a "priority status" on the wait list, but do not provide priority for the Plaintiff; (2) an equal protection claim for defendant's promulgation of revisions to a policy that give allegedly similarly situated inmates "priority (of, "faster") access" to the SOTMP, but do not provide priority for the Plaintiff; and (3) a due process claim for Defendant's failure to place the Plaintiff in the SOTMP after several years of waiting. This Magistrate Judge recommends finding that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring the first claim and, thus, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. With respect to the second and third claims, the Magistrate Judge recommends finding that Plaintiff has failed to state plausible claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for violations of due process and equal protection, and that Defendant is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity on the second and third claims. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's first claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DISMISSED and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc 20) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's second and third claims.