Opinion
Civil Case No. 11-cv-00630-REB-KLM
01-11-2013
JOSHUA E. WINGFIELD, Plaintiff, v. S.O.R.T. SGT. CLARK, S.O.R.T. DEPUTY BRIESKE, S.O.R.T. DEPUTY REID, S.O.R.T. DEPUTY WOODS, and FOUR UNKNOWN S.O.R.T. DEPUTIES, under Sgt. Clarks [sic] command on 2-23-11 who participated in the use force Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Complaint [#45] filed May 14, 2012; and (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#56] filed September 4, 2012. I approve and adopt the recommendation and grant the motion for summary judgment.
"[#45]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I construe his filings generously and with the leniency due pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus ,551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton ,483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon ,935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner ,404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
Because the plaintiff did not file objections to the recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service ,418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much less plain error, in the recommended disposition of this case, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court.
This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Morales-Fernandez ,418 F.3d at 1122.
--------
In his compliant [#1], the plaintiff alleges that the defendants used excessive force against the plaintiff while the plaintiff was incarcerated in the Arapahoe County Detention Facility. In their motion for summary judgment [#45], the defendants present evidence demonstrating the nature of the incident in question. The plaintiff did not respond to the motion for summary judgment. However, when considering the motion for summary judgment, the magistrate judge considered, appropriately, the plaintiff's sworn compliant [#1] as part of the relevant body of evidence. Viewing all of the evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable finder of fact could find in favor of the plaintiff on any of his claims. The defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#15] filed May 4, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment [#45] filed May 14, 2012 is GRANTED;
3. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 58, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, S.O.R.T. Sgt. Clark, S.O.R.T. Deputy Brieske, S.O.R.T. Deputy Reid, S.O.R.T. Deputy Woods, and the Four Unknown S.O.R.T. Deputies under Sgt Clarks [sic]command on 2-23-11 who participated in the use force, and against the plaintiff, Joshua E. Wingfield, on all claims asserted in the complaint [#1]; and
4. That defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated January 11, 2013 at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
________
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge