1

 “[#27]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02554-REB-MEH

RONALD M. COX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NURSE DOUG OF (DRDC)(CDOC),

(DRDC) WARDEN ZAVISLAN (CDOC), and

(DRCD) CAPTAIN REAUX (CDOC),

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Defendants’ Motion To

Dismiss [#27]1 filed May 21, 2012; and (2) the corresponding Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge [#40] filed July 30, 2012. I approve and adopt the

recommendation. Accordingly, I grant the motion to dismiss in part and deny it in part. 

The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I construe his filings generously and with

the leniency due pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct.

2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th

Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). 

The plaintiff did not file objections to the recommendation. Thus, I review it only

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 67 Filed 03/12/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

 This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.

2

for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service,

418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding no error, much less plain error, in the

disposition recommended by the magistrate judge, I find and conclude that the

recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court. 

In his compliant the plaintiff Ronald Cox alleges that the defendants denied him

proper medical care in violation of his right against cruel and unusual punishment under

the Eighth amendment. In a claim designated as Claim 1(b), Mr. Cox asserts that he

was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by defendant Nurse Doug when

Mr. Cox was denied timely medical treatment on the night he inadvertently ingested

razor blades found in his prison food. In Claim 2, Mr. Cox asserts two sub-claims. In

Claim 2(a), Mr. Cox alleges that defendants Captain Reaux and Warden Zavislan

inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Mr. Cox by placing Mr. Cox in a dry cell as

part of his treatment. In claim 2(b), Mr. Cox alleges that defendants Captain Reaux and

Warden Zavislan inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on Mr. Cox by denying Mr. Cox

previously prescribed medical treatment to treat his inadvertent ingestion of razor

blades. All other claims and defendants were dismissed previously.

After a thorough analysis, the magistrate judge recommends that the motion to

dismiss be granted as to Claim 1(b) because Nurse Doug is entitled to qualified

immunity. Additionally, the magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss be

granted as to Claim 2(a) because Captain Reaux and Warden Zavislan are entitled to

qualified immunity as to this claim. Finally, the magistrate judge recommends that the

motion to dismiss be denied as to claim 2(b) because Captain Reaux and Warden

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 67 Filed 03/12/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

Zavislan are not entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. I agree with the analysis

and conclusions of the magistrate judge. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#40] filed

July 30, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss [#27] filed May 21, 2012, is

DENIED as to the plaintiff’s claim, designated as claim 2(b), alleging that Captain Reaux

and Warden Zavislan violated the plaintiff’s Eight Amendment rights by denying the

plaintiff previously prescribed medical treatment to treat to his inadvertent ingestion of

razor blades;

3. That otherwise, the Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss [#27] filed May 21,

2012, is GRANTED as to all other pending claims; and

4. That the defendant designated as “Nurse Doug of (DRDC) (CDOC)” is

DROPPED from this case, and the caption is AMENDED accordingly.

Dated March 12, 2013 at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02554-RM-MEH Document 67 Filed 03/12/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3