Filed: Jun. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge. The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#29] 1 filed May 15, 2012; and (2) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#22] filed December 19, 2011. No objections having been filed, I review the recommendation for plain error only. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116 , 1122 (10 th Cir. 2005). 2 Finding n
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge. The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#29] 1 filed May 15, 2012; and (2) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#22] filed December 19, 2011. No objections having been filed, I review the recommendation for plain error only. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116 , 1122 (10 th Cir. 2005). 2 Finding no..
More
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#29]1 filed May 15, 2012; and (2) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#22] filed December 19, 2011. No objections having been filed, I review the recommendation for plain error only. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended disposition, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#29] filed May 15, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the plaintiff's request to reinstate his due process claim against quondam defendants Clements and Milyard is DENIED3;
3. That under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), the plaintiff's request for compensatory damages is DENIED4;
4. That the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [#22] filed December 19, 2011, is GRANTED;
5. That the plaintiff's Claims One and Three, as stated in his Prisoner Complaint [#13] filed September 7, 2011, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
6. That the plaintiff's Claims Two and Four, as stated in his Prisoner Complaint [#13] filed September 7, 2011, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE5 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
7. That Plaintiff SHALL BE PERMITTED to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days of this ORDER (1) to reassert his claim for denial of legal access and retaliation by identifying the unnamed shift commander; and (2) to reassert his First Amendment claim by (a) specifically identifying his religion; (b) explaining his beliefs; and (c) providing additional factual details about how and for how long his religious practices were impacted by the alleged removal of religious texts from his prison cell; and
8. That under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, the plaintiff's requests for attorney fees6 are DENIED.7
