Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 153

MINUTE ORDER striking 151 Motion to the Court for Court to Show the Plaintiff the Court Is Not Prejudice to Make Judgement in Plaintiff Favor for Her Summery of Judgement Against the Defendant. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/21/12. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court for Court to Show
the Plaintiff the Court Is Not Prejudice to Make Judgement in Plaintiff Favor for Her
Summery of Judgement Against the Defendant [sic] [Docket No. 151; Filed November
19, 2012] (the “Motion”).1
The Court has repeatedly reminded Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, that she must
comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. See, e.g., [#36, #42, #45, #52, #67, #73, #85, #89,
#148]. Plaintiff must tell the Court in her motions whether opposing counsel opposes the

1

As a courtesy, the Court reminds Plaintiff that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, she has only
fourteen (14) days after service of the Recommendation [#146] regarding the Motions for Summary
Judgment [#81, #115] on Plaintiff’s claims in order to serve and file any written objections in order
to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Failure to serve and
file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the Recommendation by the District Judge,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions. Makin v. Colo. Dep't of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th
Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996). Any objections by Plaintiff to
the Recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by
the District Court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057,
1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The present Motion does not appear to be comprised of objections aimed
at the Recommendation, but, rather, appears to ask the Court to consider additional evidence in
making its original determination on the Motions for Summary Judgment, although that
Recommendation was issued on November 13, 2012. Plaintiff does not need to comply with
D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. when filing her objections, if any, to the Recommendation.

1

relief she requests or whether opposing counsel agrees to the relief she requests. Plaintiff
must tell the Court when and how she has attempted to confer with Defendant over the
content of her motions. The Motion does not provide this information. Plaintiff has also
been warned that motions that do not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. will be
summarily stricken from the record. See, e.g., [#52, #73, #85, #89, #148]. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#151] is STRICKEN.

Dated: November 21, 2012

2