Jackson, Jr. v. Stephenson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

FELDON J. JACKSON, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civ. No. 23-96 MV/JFR

GEORGE STEPHENSON et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

The Magistrate Judge filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”) on May 21, 2025. Doc. 57. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen days and that failure to do so waived appellate review. Id. at 56; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996). On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD.1 Doc. 62. Defendants did not file objections to the PFRD or respond to Plaintiff’s objections. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and all parts of the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD to which objections have been properly made. After conducting this de novo review, and having thoroughly considered the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD and the objections thereto, the Court finds no reason either in law or in fact to depart from the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition.

1 Objections were originally due by June 4, 2025. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Doc. 57 at 56. Because Plaintiff moved facilities (Doc. 58) and did not have access to his legal materials, the Court extended the objections deadline to June 23, 2025. Doc. 59. However, three additional days were added to accommodate service by mail, effectively making Plaintiff’s objections deadline June 26, 2025. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Objections of Plaintiff (Doc. 62) are OVERRULED; 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 57) are ADOPTED; 3. Defendant Maciel’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is GRANTED; and 4. Defendants George Stephenson, David Martinez, Nancy Maldonado, and Moriama Valeriano’s (“GEO Defendants’”) Motion to Dismiss in Part, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. Uf ,

MARTH) AZQURZ, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE