McArthur v. Source Gas LLC

Filing 121

ORDER. The magistrate judges Recommendation on Defendants Motion To Dismiss and for Sanction (Docket No. 73) and Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 100) 114 filed 12/20/2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. De fendants Motion for Summary Judgment 100 filed 10/10/2011, is GRANTED. Defendants Motion To Dismiss and for Sanctions 73 , filed 8/4/2011, is DENIED AS MOOT IN PART and GRANTED IN PART. Judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, SourceGas LLC, against plaintiff, Cameron McArthur, as to all claims for relief and causes of action; provided, that the judgment shall be with prejudice. Defendant is AWARDED its costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/18/2012.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02327-REB-MJW
CAMERON McARTHUR,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOURCEGAS LLC,
Defendant.

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
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss and for Sanction (Docket No. 73) and Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 100) [#114]1 filed December 20, 2011;
and (2) Plaintiff’s Objections to Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion To
Dismiss and for Sanction (Docket No. 73) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 100) [#118] filed January 3, 2012. I overrule the objections,
adopt the recommendation, and grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), I have reviewed
de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed and
have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, response, record, and
applicable caselaw. The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly,
1

“[#114]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order and the orders entered in this case.

plaintiff’s objections are 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 magistrate judge’s Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion To
Dismiss and for Sanction (Docket No. 73) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Docket No. 100) [#114] filed December 20, 2011, is APPROVED AND
ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Objections to Recommendation on
Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss and for Sanction (Docket No. 73) and Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 100) [#118] filed January 3, 2012, are
OVERRULED;
3. That defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [#100] filed October 10,
2011, is GRANTED;
4. That Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss and for Sanctions [#73], filed August
4, 2011, is DENIED AS MOOT IN PART and GRANTED IN PART, as follows:
a. That the motion is DENIED AS MOOT insofar as it seeks dismissal of
plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) as a sanction for
litigation and discovery abuses;2 and

2

I note, however, that the pattern of abusive conduct detailed in the motion to dismiss and the
magistrate judge’s recommendation wholly would have justified dismissal as a sanction had summary
judgment otherwise not been appropriate as to all claims.

2

b. That the motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks monetary sanctions
against plaintiff, including the fees and costs associated with plaintiff’s
deposition (to the extent such fees and costs are not otherwise available
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1, as provided by
paragraph 7 below) and in connection with preparing the motion to dismiss
and for sanctions;
5. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
6. That judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, SourceGas LLC,
against plaintiff, Cameron McArthur, as to all claims for relief and causes of action;
provided, that the judgment shall be with 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 January 18, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3