Hill v. Matevousian

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: January 23, 2024
• Docket: 1:20-cv-03658
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney

Civil Action No. 20-cv-03658-CNS-MDB

LENNIS JAMES HILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

WADE, USP Lieutenant, ANTHONY, Lieutenant, and GONZALEZ, USP Investigator,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell’s Recommendation to Grant Defendants Wade, Anthony, and Gonzalez’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 65). Neither party objected to the Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation. I. SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss your Amended Complaint because, under recent U.S. Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, there is no Bivens remedy available for your Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims (ECF No. 55). This Court referred Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss to Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell for an initial determination (ECF No. 56). On December 27, 2023, Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell recommended that this Court grant the motion and dismiss your claims against Defendants with prejudice (ECF No. 65). At the end of her Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell advised that you had 14 days after service of the Recommendation to file a written objection (id. at 11–12). Neither party filed an objection. As explained in more detail below, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation and has determined that it is correct. Your case is therefore dismissed with prejudice, which means that you are not allowed to refile these claims. See Charles v. Hackford, No. 18-4024, 2018 WL 4006938, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018) (unpublished) (a “dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot return

to federal court with the same claims” (citing Styskal v. Weld County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 365 F.3d 855, 859 (10th Cir. 2004))). II. RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Lennis James Hill’s Bivens claims stem from his incarceration at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado (ECF No. 6). He alleges that he was assaulted by another inmate and sustained injuries to his jaw (id. at 7–9). He then alleges that Defendants refused to take him to the medical unit, instead placing him and the other inmate in the Special Housing Unit (id.). Six days later, Plaintiff alleges that a nurse finally took him to the medical unit where an x-ray revealed that he had a fractured jaw (id.). Plaintiff contends that Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical

needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff responded in opposition, and Defendants replied (ECF Nos. 63, 64). Employing recent Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent, Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell first determined that Plaintiff’s claims arise in a new context, meaning that his claims are “different in a meaningful way from previous Bivens cases decided by [the Supreme] Court” (ECF No. 65 at 4, 9 (quoting Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct. 735, 743 (2020) (internal quotations omitted)). Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell then concluded that an alternative remedy exists for Plaintiff—he could have availed himself to the Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Remedy Program (ECF No. 65 at 9). Each finding by Magistrate Judge Dominguez is an independent reason for dismissal (id.). III. ANALYSIS & ORDER

When—as is the case here—a party does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id. The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Recommendation and is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s Recommendation to Grant Defendants Wade, Anthony, and Gonzalez’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 65) as an order of this Court. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

(ECF No. 55) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. DATED this 23rd day of January 2023.

BY THE COURT:

_____________________________ Charlotte N. Sweeney United States District Judge