LaForce v. Wells Fargo Bank

Filing 66

ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 64 filed 8/10/2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. The Plaintiffs Motion To Amend Suit To Stop Unlawful Foreclosure 54 filed 6/13/2011, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 2/29/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-00302-REB-MEH
SHERRI LAFORCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend
Suit To Stop Unlawful Foreclosure [#54]1 filed June 13, 2011; and (2) the
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#64] filed August 10, 2011.
No objections to the recommendation have been filed by the parties. Therefore, I
review the recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding
no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I

1

“[#54]” 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.
2

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. 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, 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)).

find and conclude that recommendation should be approved and adopted.
In her present motion, the plaintiff seeks permission to file a 34 page amended
complaint. In the recommendation the magistrate judge details the reasons why the
motion to amend should be denied based on the undue delay in amending the
complaint. The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that oversight, inadvertence, or
excusable neglect excuse the substantial delay in filing her motion to amend her
complaint.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#64] filed
August 10, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court; and
2. That the Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend Suit To Stop Unlawful Foreclosure
[#54] filed June 13, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated February 29, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2