Fears v. Williams

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: March 12, 2024
• Docket: 1:22-cv-02233
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 22-cv-02233-RM-KAS

GUNNAR FEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEAN WILLIAMS JEFF LONG, and NAOMI SWITZER,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella (ECF No. 62) to grant the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Williams and Long (ECF No. 15) and to deny without prejudice the Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff (ECF No. 52). The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. More than fourteen days have elapsed since the Recommendation was issued, and no objection has been filed. Construing Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings liberally, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint raises claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false imprisonment and violations of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. His claims stem from his incarceration following a parole revocation hearing in February 2022 until his release in May 2022 for which he asserts Defendants Williams and Long are responsible. However, the magistrate judge found that “[t]he only allegations in the Complaint against Long and Williams are that Plaintiff alerted them to his unlawful confinement, but they failed to act and ensure his timely release.” (ECF No. 62 at 5.) Nor does Plaintiff allege that these Defendants acted knowingly or with deliberate indifference. (See id. at 6.) Plaintiff did not object to these findings, and the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that dismissal of the claims against these Defendants is warranted. As for Plaintiffs Motion, the magistrate judge found that it was premature because no discovery has been conducted in this case. Given that this case is still at its earliest stages, the magistrate judge recommended denying the Motion without prejudice. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). The Court finds the magistrate judge’s analysis was sound and discerns no error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 62), GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 37), and DENIES the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52). DATED this 12th day of March, 2024. BY THE COURT:

Senior United States District Judge