McGhee v. Williams

Full title: WILLIAM McGHEE, Plaintiff, v. JOE WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Sep 29, 2007

CIV-04-0239 MV/LAM (D.N.M. Sep. 29, 2007)

Opinion

CIV-04-0239 MV/LAM.

September 29, 2007

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ( Doc. 243 ) AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONTAINED IN THEIR MARTINEZ REPORT AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT( Doc. 221 )

MARTHA VAZQUEZ, District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lourdes A. Martinez' Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ( Doc. 243), filed on August 31, 2007. No party has filed objections to the proposed findings and recommended disposition and the deadline for filing objections has passed. The Court has determined that it will adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ( Doc. 243), and will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Defendants' motion for summary judgment contained in their Martinez Report and Motion for Summary Judgment (originally filed as Document 101 on November 28, 2005, and renewed as Document 221 on December 27, 2006), as set forth herein.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ( Doc. 243) are ADOPTED by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for summary judgment contained in their Martinez Report and Motion for Summary Judgment (originally filed as Document 101 on November 28, 2005, and renewed as Document 221 on December 27, 2006) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, for the reasons set forth in the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ( Doc. 243), as follows:

1. The motion is DENIED as moot insofar as it seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for monetary relief against Defendants Williams, Bustos and Prescott in their official capacities;

2. The motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Williams, Bustos and Prescott in their official capacities, except to the extent that Plaintiff's complaint seeks prospective injunctive relief and any declaratory relief that is ancillary to such prospective injunctive relief, as to which the motion is DENIED, and Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendants Williams, Bustos and Prescott in their official capacities are DISMISSED with prejudice except to the extent that Plaintiff's complaint seeks prospective injunctive relief and any declaratory relief that is ancillary to such prospective injunctive relief;

3. The motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams, Bustos, Prescott and Perry for the violation of Plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment;

4. The motion is DENIED insofar as it seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams, Bustos, Prescott and Perry for the violation of Plaintiff's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; and

5. The motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams, Bustos, Prescott and Perry for the violation of Plaintiff's right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Williams, Bustos, Prescott and Perry for the violation of Plaintiff's right to equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment are DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.