Summary
noting that injunctive relief should not lie to address conduct that occurred after complaint was filed
Summary of this case from Birman v. BerkebileOpinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01800-LTB-CBS.
May 27, 2008
ORDER
This case is before me upon the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and served on April 28, 2008 (Doc 114). Plaintiff has failed to file specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and is therefore barred from de novo review. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the recommendation is GRANTED as follows:
1. Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc 73) is GRANTED in part as follows:
A. All claims alleged against Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as barred by sovereign immunity.
B. Claims One, Two, and Three are dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.
C. Claim Ten is dismissed with prejudice in part as to Mr. Teague's allegations of unlawful conduct that occurred on July 23, 2004 and September 3, 2004, as barred by the statute of limitations.
D. Claim Ten is dismissed in its remaining part for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for conspiracy.
E. Claims Four, Six, Seven, Eight, and Eleven are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for retaliation.
F. Claim Nine is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted for denial of access to the court.
G. Defendants R. Wiley and D. Krist are dismissed from this civil action (specifically from Claims Five, Seven, Eight, Nine, and Eleven) for lack of personal participation.
H. Defendant D. Carpenter is dismissed from Claim Six for lack of personal participation.
I. Defendant R. Bauer is dismissed from Claim Ten for lack of personal participation.
J. Defendants J. Arroyo and T. Sudlow are dismissed from Claims Five and Eight for lack of personal participation and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against them for retaliation.
K. Defendants R. Bauer and N. Gladbach are dismissed from this civil action with prejudice as the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for Mr. Teague's claims against them.
2. Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc 73) is DENIED in part in that this civil action proceed only on Claim Five against Defendants P. Lee and J. Guadian.
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc 71) is DENIED AS MOOT as superseded by Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss (Doc 73).
4. Plaintiff's Motion Informing the Courts of the Continued Retaliations/Harassments Plaintiff is Forced to Endure by U.S. Penitentiary — Max Officials in D-Unit and Requesting an Injunction/Restraining Order against the Defendants/Defendants Co-Workers (Doc 83) is DENIED.
5. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting an Injunction and Restraining Order (Doc 88) is DENIED.
6. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting an Injunction and a Restraining Order against Unit Manager Collins, Case Manager Finley Counselor Madison and an Extension of Time to Provide Inmate Account Statements to the Courts Due to Ongoing Retaliations from Co-Workers of the Defendants (Doc 91) is DENIED.
7. Plaintiff's Motion Requesting an Injunction and a Restraining Order against Unit Manager Collins, Case Manager Finley Counselor Madison (Doc 96) is DENIED.