Taylor v. Casper City Council Corporation Members et al

Filing 44

ORDER. The Recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 40 , filed04/14/2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. The objections contained in plaintiffs Notice of Refusal of Recommendation Demand for Removal of Magistrate on In competence, Bias and Prejudice 42 , filed 04/26/2010, are OVERRULED. The State Defendants Motion and Memorandum in Support ofMotion To Dismiss 10 , filed 02/23/2010, is GRANTED on the basis of lack ofpersonal jurisdiction over defendants. The Loca l Government Defendants Combined Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof 12 , filed 02/25/2010, is GRANTED on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants. Any motion or other request for relief, including, but not limited to, plaintiffs Demand for Evidentiary Disclosure from John W. Renneisen, Megan Elizabeth Goetz and Michael (Greg) G. Weisz 37 , filed 04/06/2010, which is currently pending in this action, is DENIED AS MOOT. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants in this forum. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 05/07/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 10-cv-00127-REB-KMT JOHN-ARTHUR: TAYLOR JR, Plaintiff, v. CASPER CITY COUNCIL CORPORATION MEMBERS, et al, Defendants. OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of a United States Magistrate [#40], filed April 14, 2010; and (2) the objections contained in plaintiff's Notice of Refusal of Recommendation Demand for Removal of Magistrate on Incompetence, Bias and Prejudice [#42], filed April 26, 2010. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and dismiss this case without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants in this forum. 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)1; 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, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff's objections are 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 a United States Magistrate Judge [#40], filed April 14, 2010, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the objections contained in plaintiff's Notice of Refusal of Recommendation Demand for Removal of Magistrate on Incompetence, Bias and Prejudice [#42], filed April 26, 2010, are OVERRULED; 3. That the State Defendants' Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion To Dismiss [#10], filed February 23, 2010, is GRANTED on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants; 4. That the Local Government Defendants' Combined Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum in Support Thereof [#12], filed February 25, 2010, is GRANTED on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants;

Although plaintiff has over time included other "real parties in interest" as putative plaintiffs in the caption of and as signatories to his pleadings, he is the only plaintiff named in the operative complaint and has never moved to amend the complaint to join any other party plaintiff.

1

2

5. That any motion or other request for relief, including, but not limited to, plaintiff's Demand for Evidentiary Disclosure from John W. Renneisen, Megan Elizabeth Goetz and Michael (Greg) G. Weisz [#37], filed April 6, 2010, which is currently pending in this action, is DENIED AS MOOT; and 6. That this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants in this forum. Dated May 7, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

3