Carbajal v. Warner et al
Filing
446
ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 414 is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court. The objections stated in plaintiff's objection 425 are OVERRULED. The plaintiff's Corrected Petition for Federal Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 375 is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/6/13. (kfinn, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02862-REB-KLM
DEAN CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MYRL SERRA, in his individual capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the plaintiff’s Corrected Petition
for Federal Injunction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 [#375]1 filed September 11,
2012; and (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#414] filed
November 13, 2012. The plaintiff filed an objection [#425] to the recommendation, and
the defendants filed responses [#426 & #427] to the plaintiff’s objection. I overrule the
objections, approve and adopt the recommendation, and deny the motion for an
injunction.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendation, the objection, the responses to the objection, and the applicable case
1
“[#375]” 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.
law.
The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings and other
filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
The factual allegations that are the basis of the plaintiff’s complaint and his
motion for an injunction present a series of events that took place over several years.
These allegations have been summarized in several orders and recommendations
entered by the court. Thus, I will not repeat those summaries here. Based on the
record in this case, I agree with the conclusion of the magistrate judge that the plaintiff
has not demonstrated that he will suffer imminent irreparable injury if the injunction he
requests is not granted. On that basis, the magistrate judge properly denied the
plaintiff’s motion for an injunction.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#414] filed
November 13, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in plaintiff’s objection [#425] are OVERRULED;
3. That the plaintiff’s Corrected Petition for Federal Injunction Pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 [#375] filed September 11, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated March 6, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
