Edward v. Dubrish

Filing 106

ORDER. The plaintiffs objections 92 to the magistrate judges recommendation 91 are OVERRULED. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 91 filed 04/15/2009 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. The Recommendation of Un ited States Magistrate Judge 104 filed05/19/2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. Defendant Robert E. Durbishs Third Motion To Dismiss 67 filed 10/23/2008, is GRANTED. Defendant Option One Mortgage Corporations Motion To Dismi ss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 19 69 filed 10/23/2008, is DENIED. The plaintiffs claims against defendant Robert E. Durbish are DISMISSED under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). The plaintiffs claims against defendants Option One Mortgage Corporation, Henry J. Pa ulsen, and Michael B. Mukasey are DISMISSED without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine. JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, Robert E. Dubrish, against the plaintiff, Peter Edward a/k/a David Blessing. The defendant, Robert E. Dubrish, is AWARDED his costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 06/15/2009.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No.07-cv-02116-REB-KMT PETER EDWARD a/k/a DAVID BLESSING, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT E. DUBRISH, OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, el al. HENRY J. PAULSON, US Secretary of the Treasury, and MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General as alien property custodian, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendant Robert E. Durbish's Third Motion To Dismiss [#67]1 filed October 23, 2008; (2) Defendant Option One Mortgage Corporation's Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 19 [#69] filed October 23, 2008; (3) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#91] filed April 15, 2009; and (4) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#104] filed May 19, 2009. On April 24, 2009, the plaintiff filed an objection [#92] to the magistrate judge's recommendation [#91]. On May 28, 2009, the plaintiff filed a document captioned Plaintiff's Acceptance of Magestrate (sic) Tafoya's

"[#67]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

1

Recommendation of May 19, 2009 [#105]. In that filing, referring to the magistrate judge's May 29, 2009, recommendation [#104], the plaintiff says he "accepts Magistrate Tafoya's recommendation of dismissal without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to the Younger Abstention Doctrine." Plaintiff's Acceptance of Magestrate (sic) Tafoya's Recommendation of May 19, 2009 [#105]. Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the April 15, 2009, recommendation [#91] to which the plaintiff has stated objections [#92], and I have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable law. No party has filed an objection to the May 19, 2009, recommendation [#104] of the magistrate judge. Thus, I am required to review that recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Both recommendations are detailed and wellreasoned. Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's reasoning and recommended dispositions, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted. To summarize, the April 15, 2009, recommendation [#91] addresses defendant Robert E. Durbish's motion to dismiss [#67]. For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's recommendation [#91], defendant Durbish's motion to dismiss [#67] is granted. The May 19, 2009, recommendation [#104] addresses defendant Option One Mortgage 2

Corporation's motion to dismiss [#69]. The magistrate judge recommends, correctly, that this motion should be denied. However, the magistrate judge recommends, correctly, that the plaintiff's claims against defendants Option One Mortgage Corporation, Henry J. Paulsen, and Michael B. Mukasey must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the plaintiff's objections [#92] to the magistrate judge's recommendation [#91] are OVERRULED; 2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#91] filed April 15, 2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 3. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#104] filed May 19, 2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 4. That Defendant Robert E. Durbish's Third Motion To Dismiss [#67] filed October 23, 2008, is GRANTED; 5. That Defendant Option One Mortgage Corporation's Motion To Dismiss Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 19 [#69] filed October 23, 2008, is DENIED; 6. That the plaintiff's claims against defendant Robert E. Durbish are DISMISSED under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6); 7. That the plaintiff's claims against defendants Option One Mortgage Corporation, Henry J. Paulsen, and Michael B. Mukasey are DISMISSED without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine; 8. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, Robert E. Dubrish, against the plaintiff, Peter Edward a/k/a David Blessing; and

3

9. That the defendant, Robert E. Dubrish, is AWARDED his costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. Dated June 15, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

4