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, )

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