Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-03436-RM-SKC
03-23-2023
JACK L. MILLER III, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MEDINA, and SGT. LILES, Defendants.
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews (ECF No. 38) to grant Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25). The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. More than fourteen days have elapsed since the Recommendation was issued, and no objection has been filed. For the reasons below, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
“In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
As outlined in the Recommendation, Plaintiff is a pro se prisoner who brought this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Defendants responded with pepper spray to the disobedience of a group of prisoners (not including Plaintiff) at the Buena Vista Correctional Facility. Defendants' Motion was referred to the magistrate judge for a Recommendation, and Plaintiff did not respond to it.
The magistrate judge agreed with Defendants' position that Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against them in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The magistrate judge also agreed that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief against them must be dismissed.
As noted above, Plaintiff has responded to neither the Motion nor the Recommendation.
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis of the issues presented. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F.Supp.3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge's work in the absence of any objection).
Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 38) and GRANTS Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 25). The case will proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment excessive force claim for monetary damages against Defendants in their individual capacities only.