Douglas v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers District Lodge 141

Filing 63

ORDER. The Recommendation on Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Docket No.21) 36 filed 03/06/2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' Notice of Motion To Dismiss (F.R.C.P 12(b)(6) 21 filed 09/10/2008, is GRANTED. The Recommendation on Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Title VII Complaint (Docket No. 49) 58 filed 08/18/2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The plaintiffs Proposed Amended Pleading 49 and the associated me morandum in support 50 , both filed 07/29/2009, read as a motion to amend the complaint, are DENIED. The plaintiffs objections 37 & 59 to the two pending recommendations are OVERRULED. JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, Internatio nalAssociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141, a/k/a IAMAWRocky Mountain Aircraft Lodge 1886, against the plaintiff, Joe Douglas. Defendants are AWARDED their costs. This case is DISMISSED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 09/22/2009.(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 08-cv-01052-REB-MJW JOE DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, DISTRICT LODGE 141, a/k/a IAMAW ROCKY MOUNTAIN AIRCRAFT LODGE 1886, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the following: (1) International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' Notice of Motion To Dismiss (F.R.C.P 12(b)(6) [#21]1 filed September 10, 2008; (2) Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 21) [#36] filed March 6, 2009; (3) a motion captioned as Proposed Amended Pleading [#49] and the associated memorandum in support [#50], both filed July 29, 2009; and (4) Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Title VII Complaint (Docket No. 49) [#58] filed August 18, 2009. Like the magistrate judge, I read the plaintiff's filing captioned as Proposed Amended Pleading [#49] as a motion to amend the complaint. The plaintiff filed "[#21]" 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. 1 objections [#37 & #59] to the two pending recommendations. Those objections prompted the filing of responses [#38 & #60] to the plaintiff's objections, and the plaintiff filed replies [#39 & #61] to the responses. As required by 28 U.S.C. 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendations to which objections have been filed, and I have considered carefully the recommendations, objections, and applicable law. In addition, 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). The recommendations are detailed and well-reasoned. Finding no 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. I find also that the plaintiff's objections [#37 & #59] are without merit. In sum, I agree with the magistrate judge's conclusion that the plaintiff's allegations do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Further, I agree with the magistrate judge's conclusion that the allegations in the plaintiff's proposed amended complaint also do not state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face and, therefore, that the plaintiff's request to amend his complaint should be denied. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 21) [#36] filed March 6, 2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers' 2 Notice of Motion To Dismiss (F.R.C.P 12(b)(6) [#21] filed September 10, 2008, is GRANTED; 3. That the Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Title VII Complaint (Docket No. 49) [#58] filed August 18, 2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 4. That the plaintiff's Proposed Amended Pleading [#49] and the associated memorandum in support [#50], both filed July 29, 2009, read as a motion to amend the complaint, are DENIED; 5. That the plaintiff's objections [#37 & #59] to the two pending recommendations are OVERRULED; 6. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 141, a/k/a IAMAW Rocky Mountain Aircraft Lodge 1886 , against the plaintiff, Joe Douglas; 7. That defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and 8. That this case is DISMISSED. Dated September 22, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?