United States District Court, D. Colorado
RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Reid Neureiter United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment
filed by Plaintiff on May 22, 2019. (Dkt. #54.) Defendants
Sgt. Leach and Matt Elbe submitted their Response in
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on
June 7, 2019. (Dkt. #58.) Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
referred the motion to me for recommendation on May 23, 2019.
(Dkt. #56.) Having carefully considered the briefing, the
record, the discussion at the June 27, 2019 Motions Hearing
(see Dkt. #59), and the applicable law, the Court
finds that Mr. Hall failed to establish that no genuine
issues of material fact exist such that Mr. Hall would be
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Hall, a pro-se prisoner, filed the operative complaint in
this action (Second Amended Complaint) on March 1, 2019,
alleging that his constitutional rights were violated during
his time as a pre-trial detainee at the Weld County jail.
(Dkt. #32.) On April 23, 2019, the Court granted Defendants
Sgt. Leach and Matt Elbe's request for an extension of
time in which to respond to the Complaint, giving them until
May 14, 2019 to do so. (Dkt. #43.) Defendants filed a Motion
to Partially Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 14,
2019. (Dkt. #50.) The same day, Defendants Sgt. Leach and
Matt Elbe also filed their Answer. (Dkt. #51.)
Court notes that while Mr. Hall did not file a response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #50), he filed the
instant Motion, titled “Motion for Summary
Judgment” after Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and
requests in his Motion for Summary Judgment that the Court
“at least deny the motions to dismiss.” (Dkt. #54
¶ 5.) The Court will address Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss separately in a Recommendation on Defendants'
Motion to Partially Dismiss.
Court shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, or
affidavits show there is no genuine issue of material fact,
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A fact is material if it might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The moving party bears the initial
responsibility of providing to the Court the factual basis
for its motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). “The party seeking summary judgment
must identify portions of the record that demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Lenox
MacLaren Surgical Corp. v. Medtronic, Inc., 762 F.3d
1114, 1118 (10th Cir. 2014).
Motion argues that “Defendants have had more than
enough ample time to respond to the claims in matter, ”
which the Court construes to mean Plaintiff believes that
Defendants have not properly or timely responded to his
Second Amended Complaint. This is not the case. Defendants
timely responded to Mr. Hall's Second Amended Complaint
when they filed their Motion to Dismiss and their Answer on
May 14, 2019.
remainder of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Hall fails
to identify any evidence or substantive facts in the record.
Instead, Mr. Hall further states that his allegations are not
frivolous or malicious (Dkt. #54 ¶ 6), and he believes
“that the court will sense a genuine urgency and
perseverance to have the defendants held accountable for
violating the civil and constitutional rights that were
bestowed on me by this great country.” (Id.
¶ 8.) Mr. Hall failed to identify any evidence, let
alone undisputed material facts, to support his claims
against Sergeant Leach and Matt Elbe.
the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment be DENIED. To be clear, this does not mean that
Plaintiff's case fails. It is just that at this early
stage, Plaintiff has not established his right to prevail.
ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the parties shall
have fourteen (14) days after service of this Recommendation
to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain
reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is
assigned. A party's failure to serve and file specific,
written objections waives de novo review of the
Recommendation by the District Judge, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives
appellate review of both factual and legal questions. Makin
v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir.
1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir.
1996). A party's objections to this Recommendation must