Summary
In Sutton, a party moving for summary judgment cited Reed and argued that because the plaintiff had not timely responded, he had waived the right to controvert the facts in the motion.
Summary of this case from Atherton v. GopinOpinion
Civil Action No. 06-CV-01606-DME-KLM.
July 17, 2008
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mix (Doc. No. 138) that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 115) be granted. Plaintiff Kenneth Sutton has objected to Judge Mix's recommendation (Doc. No. 140) and this court therefore reviews the matter de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, "his pleadings are to be construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having reviewed the record, pleadings, Judge Mix's recommendation, and Plaintiff's objections, this court finds Plaintiff's objections without merit and concludes that Judge Mix's recommendation offered a correct disposition of this case. It is therefore ORDERED:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mix (Doc. No. 138), filed May 28, 2008, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That Plaintiff's Objections to that Recommendation (Doc. No. 140), filed June 16, 2008, are OVERRULED;
3. That Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 115), filed January 22, 2008, is GRANTED;
4. That judgment SHALL ENTER for Defendants Corrections Corporation of America, Washington State Department of Corrections, L. Brent Crouse, Harold Clark, Sam Rogers, and James Thatcher, as to all claims and causes of action asserted.