Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-cv-02191-RM-NRN
02-04-2020
JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. LT. HYDENTHAL, et al., LT. RILEY, MR. CELLA, SGT. TAYLOR, and MRS. SANTOS, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the January 3, 2020 "Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DKT. #103)" of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 114) to grant in part and deny in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 114 at page 17.) Defendants were granted an extension of time to and including January 31, 2020 to file any objections. (ECF Nos. 116, 117.) Plaintiff did not request any enlargement of time to file any objections. No objections have been filed by any party and the time to do so has passed for all parties. (See generally Dkt.)
The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Neureiter's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1) ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the "Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (DKT. #103)" (ECF No. 114) in its entirety; and
(2) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 103) as follows:
(a) GRANTED as to Mr. Sutton's First Amendment Free Exercise claim against any and all Defendants and this claim is dismissed with prejudice;
(b) DENIED as to Mr. Sutton's First Amendment retaliation claim asserted against Defendant Cella;
(c) DENIED Mr. Suttons' Equal Protection claim against Defendants Riley, Taylor, and Santos as it relates to the confiscation of his religious books;
(d) GRANTED to the extent that Mr. Sutton's § 1983 claims against Defendants are against them in their official capacity for monetary damages, and any such claim is dismissed with prejudice; and
(e) DENIED as to Mr. Sutton's request for nominal or punitive damages.
DATED this 4th day of February, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge