Wilson v. Zavaras et al

Filing 155

ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 138 , filed 4/6/2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The objections stated in Plaintiffs Objection to the Magistrate Judges Recommendation 146 , filed 5/31/2011 are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs Motion for Enlargement of Time 71 , filed 11/2/2009, is DENIED. Plaintiffs Renewed Motion To Send the Matter Back to theMagistrate Judge with Instructions 118 , filed 2/7/2011, is DENIED AS MOOT. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/9/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 08-cv-01355-REB-KMT
STEVEN WILSON, aka PAUL RATEAU,
Plaintiff,
v.
CATHY HOLST, Manager, Office of Correctional Legal Services,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#138], filed April 6, 2011; and (2) Plaintiff’s Objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [#146], filed May 31, 2011. I overrule the
objections, adopt the recommendation, and deny plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of
Time [#71], filed November 2, 2009.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Moreover, because 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, 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. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.

1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d
652 (1972)).
The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s
objection is imponderous and without merit. Therefore, I find and conclude that the
arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#138], filed
April 6, 2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation [#146], filed May 31, 2011, are OVERRULED;
3. That plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of Time [#71], filed November 2,
2009, is DENIED; and
4. That plaintiff’s Renewed Motion To Send the Matter Back to the
Magistrate Judge with Instructions [#118], filed February 7, 2011, is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Dated August 9, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2