Huffman v. Allred

Full title: LORAL HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ALLRED, DR. CARTER, SANCHEZ, Case…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Nov 22, 2011

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01459-CMA-KLM (D. Colo. Nov. 22, 2011)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01459-CMA-KLM

11-22-2011

LORAL HUFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. ALLRED, DR. CARTER, SANCHEZ, Case Manager, DERR, United Manager, JOHN DOE, Mailroom Supervisor, JANE DOE, Food Supervisor, BUCKNER, Investigator, LINCOLN, D.H.D., and CRANK, Trust Manager, Defendants.

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 31, 2011

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. On October 31, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 75), in which she recommended that Plaintiff's "Information for Temporary Restraining Order" (Doc. # 62), "Emergency Injunction" (Doc. # 64), and second "Information for Temporary Restraining Order" (Doc. # 74) be denied. The Magistrate Judge also ordered that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. # 73) be denied. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has objected to this recommendation. (Doc. # 95.)

In light of these objections, the Court has conducted the requisite de novo review of the issues, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff's objections.¹ Plaintiff fails to raise any new issues of law or fact warranting a result different from that reached by the Magistrate Judge in her Recommendation. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's recommendations are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

1 Because Plaintiff's Motion to Seal involves a nondispositive pretrial motion, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was "clearly erroneous or . . . contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Having reviewed the objections, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's order denying the motion to seal was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's "Information for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 62), "Emergency Injunction" (Doc. # 64), and second "Information for Temporary Restraining Order" (Doc. # 74) be DENIED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. # 73) is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge