Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Gunja

February 16, 2006

JOHN ERIC THOMAS, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
JOSEPH E. GUNJA, WARDEN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VALLE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WATSON, CELESTE SANTOS, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT, CELESTINO GARCIA, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROBLISS, MR. ACOSTA, ASSISTANT WARDEN, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER L. RITTENMEYER, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Wiley Y. Daniel

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed January 27, 2006. Magistrate Judge Boland recommends therein that this action be dismissed with prejudice. See Recommendation at 5.

As grounds for the recommendation, Magistrate Judge Boland asserts that dismissal is proper under D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1, as Plaintiff failed to provide a meaningful response to the Court's Show Cause Order of December 1, 2005.*fn1

Magistrate Judge Boland also asserts that dismissal is proper based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with orders of the Court and for abusing the judicial system.

In that regard, Magistrate Judge Boland notes that Plaintiff has filed "unfounded motions and objections which do not meaningfully address the issues in this case." Recommendation at 4. Further, the Recommendation notes that the Court denied twelve motions filed by Plaintiff seeking injunctive relief against certain Indiana state officials. Plaintiff was warned twice that he could not obtain the requested injunctive relief because it was sought against officials who are not parties to this action. Plaintiff was also warned twice that his motions for injunctive relief are frivolous and that repeated submissions of such motions constitute an abuse to the judicial system. Finally, Plaintiff was twice ordered to cease filing such motions. Despite these clear directives from the Court, the Recommendation notes that Plaintiff has continued his abusive filings.

On February 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. These objections necessitate a de novo determination as to those specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made since the nature of the matter is dispositive. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's objections assert that the magistrate judge is prejudiced and has discriminated against Plaintiff. Plaintiff also asserts that his First Amendment and other constitutional rights are violated by the recommendation to dismiss his case without prejudice. I find no merit to the objections and overrule them.

First, Plaintiff's argument that Magistrate Judge Boland is prejudiced and/or has discriminated against him is not supported in any manner. Plaintiff has not alleged facts or any specific allegations of prejudice and/or discrimination. Magistrate Judge Boland correctly pointed this out in his Order addressing this issue, and also represented that he does not hold a bias or enmity against the Plaintiff. See Order filed January 30, 2006. Plaintiff did not appeal that Order. It appears that Plaintiff simply does not like the rulings made by Magistrate Judge Boland. That does not, however, establish prejudice or discrimination. See United States v. Cooley, 1 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 1993).

I also reject Plaintiff's argument that his constitutional rights are violated by Magistrate Judge Boland's recommendation of dismissal. Any party to proceedings in this court, including a pro se plaintiff, must comply with orders of the Court and the rules of civil procedure, including the prohibition against the filing of frivolous pleadings. A district court has inherent power to dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party's failure to comply with same, and this does not implicate the First Amendment or other constitutional rights of the party. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 1994).

In this case, Plaintiff was given warnings that repeated filing of his frivolous motions and/or refusal to comply with court orders could result in dismissal of the case. Plaintiff chose to ignore those warnings, and must face the consequences. I find that Magistrate Judge Boland properly considered the relevant factors in deciding to dismiss the case, and I agree with him that dismissal of this case with prejudice is proper on the grounds stated in the Recommendation.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed January 27, 2006, is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

Wiley Y. Daniel U. S. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.