United States District Court for the District of Colorado, 2021

Martinez v. Mitzel

Martinez v. Mitzel
United States District Court for the District of Colorado · Decided May 12, 2021
Martinez v. Mitzel

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02411-CMA-MEH EUGENE F. MARTINEZ, JR., Plaintiff, v. MRS. MITZEL, DEAN WILLIAMS, MICHELLE BRODEUR, JOY HART, C. ESTEP, MARK ANDREIS, KRISTA CIARLO, SERGIO PRIETO, CHANCE TURNER, STEPHANIE MARTINEZ, LISA MUELLER, JOHN ATCHERSON, LYLE KENTIZER, BROCK VAUGHN, BRADY HUMSAKER, RICAHRD JOSIAH, MANUEL GARCIA, c/o HECKMAN, psychologist, Buena Vista Correctional Facility, individually and professionally, GOVENOR JARED POLIS, THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, J. HUFF, CDOC Mental Health Clinician, J. LONG, SCF Warden, V. NIERA, SCF Health Service Administrator, J. WILLEY, Mental Health Supervisor, M. HOTZ, SCF Clinician, BOWMAN, SCF Clinician, J. QUINNLEN, LT. WINGERT, SCF, CAPTAIN DORCEY, SCF, TORRES FORD, c/o SCF, ANTHONY MORENO, c/o SCF, RITTENHOUSE, correctional officer SCF, B. ROMERO, c/o SCF J. JOHNSON, SGT, WHITE, SCF, B. HAGAN, Intel Officer, CSP SGT APRIL SAUCEDO, SCF, SGT VASQUEZ, SCF JOHANNA KENNEDY, c/o SCF, WARDEN LITTLE CSP, LISAC, Associate Warden CSP, DR. SOTO, psychologist mental health supervisor CSP DALTON, HSA health services administrator CSP, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the April 19, 2021 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, wherein Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty recommends that this Court deny as moot the pending Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. # 32)1 and administratively close this case, at Plaintiff’s request, so that Plaintiff may focus on an older, pending matter in which he is represented by counsel. See (Doc. # 80). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

1 In his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hegarty accepted Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 79) as filed, which mooted the Motion for Partial Dismissal. See Scott v. Buckner Co., 388 F. Supp. 3d 1320, 1323–24 (D. Colo. 2019) ("It is well-established that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders the original complaint of no legal effect[,]" and therefore moots any motion to dismiss aimed at an inoperable pleading.).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 80 at 3.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation has been filed by any party. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”)).

After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hegarty, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the April 19, 2021 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 80) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. # 32) is DENIED AS MOOT. It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is administratively closed for a term of one year, up to May 11, 2022, at which time this case will be dismissed entirely, subject to a motion to extend the administrative closure or reopening for good cause.

DATED: May 12, 2021 BY THE COURT: CHRISTINE M. ARGUETLO United States District Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.