Opinion
Civil Action 23-cv-00820-CNS-NRN
02-29-2024
PERRY W. SUGGS JR., Plaintiff, v. WARDEN LEPE, Defendant.
ORDER
Charlotte N. Sweeney, United Stated District Judge
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter issued on February 8, 2024, recommending that this Court grant Defendant Lepe's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. ECF No. 27 (motion to dismiss; ECF No. 33 (Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss). For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
I. SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF
On June 29, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss your Complaint. ECF No. 27. Defendant made two arguments. First, Defendant contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over your claims for prospective relief, and thus, dismissal is warranted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Id. at 5-7. Second, Defendant argues that your Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim for relief because the actions you challenge reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest (e.g., securing the prison facility). Id. at 7-15.
The Court referred Defendant's motion to dismiss to Magistrate Judge Neureiter for initial review. Upon reviewing Defendant's motion, your response, and Defendant's reply, ECF Nos. 27, 30, 31, he agreed with Defendant on both points and recommended to this Court that your Complaint be dismissed. ECF No. 33.
At the end of his Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Neureiter advised that you had 14 days after service of the Recommendation to file a written objection. Id. at 13. You did not file an objection or otherwise respond within that window. As explained in more detail below, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation and has determined that it is correct. Your case is therefore dismissed without prejudice, which means that you may refile your claims, assuming you can satisfy all of procedural and jurisdictional requirements. See Crowe v. Servin, 723 Fed.Appx. 595, 598 (10th Cir. 2018) (“A dismissal without prejudice just means that the plaintiff isn't barred from refiling the lawsuit within the applicable limitations period.” (citations and quotations omitted)).
II. ANALYSIS & ORDER
The parties were advised that they had 14 days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See ECF No. 33 at 13 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Neureiter's Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A party's failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Neureiter's analysis was thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of standing and not on the merits, it will do so without prejudice. See Bruzga v. Cnty. of Boulder by & through Bd. of Cnty. Comm'r, 795 Fed.Appx. 599, 604-05 (10th Cir. 2020) (dismissal based on lack of standing should be without prejudice).
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Neureiter's Recommendation as an order of this Court. ECF No. 33. Defendant Lepe's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. ECF No. 27. Plaintiff's case is DISMISSED without prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.