Donald v. Pearson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 22-cv-01312-RM-NRN
LARON ANTONIO DONALD,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOUGLAS L. PEARSON,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, a prisoner in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”),
filed this pro se lawsuit when he was unable to obtain satisfactory dental care in prison.1 The
Court has dismissed all his claims except for his First Amendment retaliation claim against
Defendant Pearson, a CDOC dentist. (ECF No. 75.) This Order addresses Plaintiff’s Objections
directed at two discovery rulings by the magistrate judge. (ECF Nos. 202, 215.) Defendant
Pearson and former Defendant CDOC have filed Responses to the Objections (ECF Nos. 205,
218, 219), and Plaintiff has filed Replies (ECF Nos. 214, 220). The Court overrules the
1 Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court liberally construes his pleadings. See Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). But a pro se plaintiff must follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants, and the Court does not supply additional factual allegations
to round out a complaint or construct legal theories on his behalf. Smith v. United States,
561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009). The Court may excuse a pro se plaintiff’s failure to cite
proper legal authority, confusion about various legal theories, poor syntax and sentence
construction, or unfamiliarity with pleading requirements, but it does not act as his advocate.
See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case No. 1:22-cv-01312-RM-NRN Document 222 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
Objections for the reasons below.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
This Court can modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on nondispositive matters
only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);
Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.2d 562, 566 (10th Cir. 1997). The Court must have “a definite and
firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus.,
847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted).
II. 	FIRST OBJECTION
In his Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum (ECF No. 181), Plaintiff sought evidence
pertaining to the placement of mounted surveillance cameras within the medical unit at the
Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility, where the incident between him and Defendant Pearson
occurred. Citing declarations by the CDOC that no video footage exists because “no cameras
point into the exam rooms” and “all footage is written over after fourteen days,” the magistrate
judge found that Plaintiff sought “information that is not relevant to the claim at issue in this
case” and denied the Motion. (Id.)
In his first Objection, Plaintiff contends that the CDOC misrepresented “the number of
cameras and their respective positions.” (ECF No. 202 at 2.) However, in the absence of any
showing that relevant video footage still exists, the layout and number of cameras is not relevant
to Plaintiff’s claim. On the current record, the Court cannot conclude that the magistrate judge’s
handling of this matter was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
III. 	SECOND OBJECTION
In his Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 155), Plaintiff sought spoliation sanctions,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01312-RM-NRN Document 222 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
including adverse inference instructions, due to Defendant Pearson’s failure to produce in
discovery video footage from of the incident, investigative reports, tangible communications,
mental health records, and third-party grievances. In denying the Motion, the magistrate judge
found there was no evidence that Defendant Pearson had custody or control over the video
footage or the authority to access the cameras or any video footage or to influence the retention
of the footage. With respect to the investigative reports and tangible communications, the
magistrate judge noted Plaintiff’s failure to “point to any evidence that would suggest these
reports or communications exist.” (ECF No. 211 at 16.) Regarding the mental health records,
the magistrate judge noted Plaintiff’s failure to “argue that any mental health records remain
outstanding.” (Id. at 16-17.) And regarding the third-party grievances, the magistrate judge
noted that the CDOC had already been ordered to produce redacted versions of them. Thus, the
magistrate judge found that sanctions were not justified and denied the Motion.
In his Objection, Plaintiff fails to meaningfully address these findings by the magistrate
judge. In the absence of any evidence that rebuts them, the Court is not persuaded that the denial
of his Motion was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF Nos. 202, 215).
DATED this 12th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
Senior United States District Judge
Case No. 1:22-cv-01312-RM-NRN Document 222 filed 01/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3