Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-01842-MEH
02-06-2023
WALLACE MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. C. CARTER, Warden, S. LOVETT, Warden, J. SPENCER, Correctional Officer, D. MCMICHAELS, Correctional Officer, J. LEWIS, Correctional Officer, K. WALLEY, Correctional Officer, MARTIN, Correctional Officer, J. JONES, Correctional Officer, S. MAHAN, Correctional Officer, C. RUNQUIST, Correctional Officer, C. PINO, Correctional Officer, M. VALVERDE, Correctional Officer, S. STRATTON, Correctional Officer, M. RICKMAN, Correctional Officer, F. AMALIA, Correctional Officer, MANJARREZ, Correctional Officer, J. PEREZ, Correctional Officer, V. VIGIL, Correctional Officer, T. TOMKO, Correctional Officer, WILLIAM RESTO, M.D., Clinical Director, CARROLL LINGREN, Assistant Health Services Administrator, KIESHA RESTO, Pharmacist, K. KLANG, Pharmacist, GENE JOHNSON, Pharmacist, NIXON ROBERTS, Dentist, ANDRES RIVERA, Psychiatrist, S. BAYER, Physician Assistant, NICHOLAS BAILEY, Nurse, ROBERT MANN, Counselor, SHUAYB, Imam/Muslim Chaplain, and D. BARNETT, Food Manager, against all Defendants in their individual capacities, Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Reinstate Deprivation of Property Claims, and for a
Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. ECF 64. In it he states his understanding that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gallagher, ECF 38 [March 25, 2022] dismissed his deprivation of property claims. Motion, ECF 64 at 3. However, Plaintiff has already objected to that Recommendation, ECF 41, and his Objection is now before District Judge Moore. The arguments in the current Motion regarding that claim are redundant to his Objection. Therefore, I recommend that the Motion be denied without prejudice.
The Motion also attempts to repeat Plaintiff's request for emergency relief. Judge Moore denied this portion of the Motion on October 25, 2022. ECF 71.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)).