Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00564-CMA-MEH
08-31-2012
JOHN RAINEY, Plaintiff, v. KATHLEEN BOYD, Defendant.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING AUGUST 15, 2012
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 10.) On August 15, 2012, Judge Hegarty issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 45), advising the Court to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 27). On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 48.)
Plaintiff also filed a letter, which the Court has taken into consideration. (Doc. # 47.)
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to. In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
In the instant case, Plaintiff does not "properly object[ ]" to the Recommendation. Instead, he essentially argues for more time to prove his claims and asserts that the relevant exhibits have not been provided to the Court. However, Plaintiff fails to submit any additional exhibits, and the Court declines to grant Plaintiff additional time to litigate issues that have been fully briefed and on which the Court is prepared to rule. Despite the lack of a proper objection, the Court has nonetheless conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff's objection thereto. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that Judge Hegarty's Recommendation is correct and is not called into question by Plaintiff's objection.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 45), filed August 15, 2012, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. # 48) is OVERRULED.
3. Pursuant to the Recommendation, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 27) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to claims arising from the January 25, 2012 grievance and concerning any alleged denial of medical care on February 17 or 18, 2012. As such, these claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
b. Plaintiff fails to state plausible constitutional violations and, thus, Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's Eighth, Fourteenth and Seventeenth Amendment claims. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss these claims is GRANTED and the remainder of Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED.4. This case is hereby DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
____________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge