Alley v. Aurora Loan Services

Filing 36

ORDER. The magistrate judges Recommendation on Pending Motions 35 filed 7/21/2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendants Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(6) 14 filed 9/29/2011, is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Petition for Temporary Injunctio n 2 filed 9/3/2010, is DENIED. Plaintiffs Petition for Restraining Order 3 filed 9/3/2010 is DENIED. Plaintiffs claims against defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state claims on which relief may be granted. Judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, Aurora Loan Services, against plaintiff, Marge Alley. Defendant is AWARDED its costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/26/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02163-REB-CBS
MARGE ALLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the United States magistrate judge’s Recommendation
on Pending Motions [#35]1 filed July 21, 2011. No objections having been filed to the
recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding
no such error in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I find and conclude
that the recommendation should be approved and adopted.

1

“[#35]” 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 her
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)).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the magistrate judge’s Recommendation on Pending Motions [#35]
filed July 21, 2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) [#14] filed September 29, 2010, is GRANTED;
3. That plaintiff’s Petition for Temporary Injunction [#2] filed September 3,
2010, is DENIED;
4. That plaintiff’s Petition for Restraining Order [#3] filed September 3, 2010,
is DENIED;
5. That plaintiffs’ claims against defendant are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to state claims on which relief may be granted;
6. That judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, Aurora Loan Services,
against plaintiff, Marge Alley, as to all claims for relief and causes of action asserted
against these defendants; provided, that judgment as to these defendants SHALL BE
without prejudice; and
7. That defendant is AWARDED its 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.
Dated August 26, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2