Short v. Trujillo et al

Filing 54

ORDER. The magistrate judges Recommendation on Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 20) 43 filed 01/23/2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The objections stated in Plaintiffs Objection to Recommendation on Plaintiffs Motion f or a Temporary Restraining Order 47 filed 01/30/2009 are OVERRULED. Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order contained in his Emergancy (sic) Declaration of Plaintiff of November 18th 2008 20 filed 12/1/2008 is DENIED by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 02/24/2009.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 08-cv-02209-REB-MJW TROY A. SHORT, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN A. J. TRUJILLO, LIEUTENANT CORY BURKET, and LIEUTENANT JAMES MAESTAS, Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. The matters before me are (1) the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 20) [#43] filed January 23, 2009; and (2) Plaintiff's Objection to Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [#47] filed January 30, 2009. I overrule the objection, adopt the recommendation, and deny plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. 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. In addition, 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 ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff's objections are imponderous and without merit.1 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 magistrate judge's Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Docket No. 20) [#43] filed January 23, 2009, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objection to Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [#47] filed January 30, 2009, are OVERRULED; and

Plaintiff's objections include arguments suggesting that counsel should be appointed to assist him in the prosecution of this case. This argument is not properly presented as part of plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation on plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1C ("A Motion shall not be included in a response to reply to the original motion. A motion shall be made in a separate paper."). Moreover, the magistrate judge has already denied plaintiff's request to appoint counsel (see Minute Order [#44] entered January 23, 2009), and plaintiff presents nothing that would cause me to reconsider the wisdom of that order.

1

2

3. That plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order contained in his Emergancy (sic) Declaration of Plaintiff of November 18th 2008 [#20] filed December 1, 2008, is DENIED. Dated February 24, 2009, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

3