Mason v. Hartley et al
Filing
123
ORDER Adopting Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge [# 114 ] and [# 116 ] are APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court. The objections [# 115 ] & [# 122 ] of the plaintiff are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [# 74 ] is DENIED. The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [# 90 ] is GRANTED. The plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief [# 107 ] is DENIED. Judgment shall enter. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/12/2013.(klyon, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00578-REB-KLM
SCOTT MASON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. HUGHES, Commander, F.C.F. S.E.R.T., and
C/O FRANCIS, F.C.P. S.E.R.T.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [#74]1 filed March 21, 2012; (2) the defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment [#90] filed April 13, 2012; (3) the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive
Relief [#107] filed October 17, 2012; (4) the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#114] filed December 10, 2012; and (5) the Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#116] filed January 22, 2013. The plaintiff filed
objections [#115 & #122] to both recommendations. I overrule the objections, approve
and adopt the two recommendations, grant the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, and deny the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief and motion for summary
judgment.
1
“[#74]” 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.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendations to which the plaintiff objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendations, the objections, and the applicable case law.
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 (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)).
The plaintiff, Scott Mason, is an inmate in the Colorado Department of
Corrections. In his complaint, Mr. Mason alleges that he has several medical
conditions. According to Mr. Mason, on July 23, 2009, he and other inmates were
required to stand outside in direct sunlight for several hours. These circumstances
exacerbated certain of Mr. Mason’s medical conditions, he contends. He alleges that
he requested medical care that day, but was denied adequate medical care. In the
recommendation [#116] addressing the motions for summary judgment, the magistrate
judge analyzes thoroughly the evidence in the record and applies correctly the relevant
summary judgment standard. I agree with the analysis and conclusion of the magistrate
judge. Thus, I deny the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and grant the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
In his motion for injunctive relief, Mr. Mason seeks an order requiring authorities
at the prison where he currently is housed to provide him with a specific type of medical
shoe. In the recommendation [#114] addressing the motion for injunctive relief, the
magistrate judge analyzes thoroughly the evidence in the record and applies correctly
the relevant standard for granting injunctive relief. I agree with the analysis and
2
conclusion of the magistrate judge. Thus, I deny the plaintiff’s motion for injunctive
relief.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#114] filed
December 10, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#116] filed
January 22, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
3. That the objections [#115 & #122] of the plaintiff are OVERRULED;
4. That the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#74] filed March 21,
2012, is DENIED;
5. That the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [#90] filed April 13,
2012, is GRANTED;
6. That the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief [#107] filed October 17, 2012,
is DENIED;
7. That judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Mr. Hughes,
Commander, F.C.F. S.E.R.T., and C/O Francis, F.C.P. S.E.R.T., against the plaintiff,
Scott Mason; and
8. That defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the
court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated March 12, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
3
]]>
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?
