Ramos v. USA

Filing 27

ORDER Overruling Objection. ORDERED that the document titled "Objection to Magistrate's Orders Issued November 10th 2011" 26 is construed liberally as an objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and the objection is overruled, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/1/11.(lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01073-BNB
LEONARDO RAMOS-HERNANDEZ, also known as
LEONARDO RAMOS, and
ALL PERSONS SIMILARY [sic] SITUATED, AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF ALL MALE
ACTIVE DUTY SERVICEMEN IN THE U.S. NAVY
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ANDREW TOMBLEY, an individual,
POINT OF ENTRY SUPERVISOR DOE, an individual,
TWO UNKNOWN CUSTOMS AGENTS, individuals,
DOES 1-50, individuals or corporations,
DOES 1-50, individuals,
POINT AGENT DOE, an individual,
SECONDARY INSPECTION AGENT DOE, an individual,
BIOMETRICS AGENT DOE, an individual,
CHECKPOINT SUPERVISOR DOE, an individual,
DOES 101-150, individuals,
ROSA LOPEZ, an individual,
RYAN STARKEY, an individual,
SSAFO SUPERVISOR DOE, an individual,
DOES 151-200, individuals,
DOES 201-250, individuals,
CDR VELEZ, an individual,
CAPT[.] KEELLY, an individual,
ABECS LOCKWOOD, an individual,
KENNETH ROYALS, an individual,
ALFREDO ZABALA JR., an individual,
M. RAMOS, an individual,
V. MARTÍNEZ,
STONE, an individual,
DOES 251-300, an individual,
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court on the document titled “Objection to Magistrate’s
Orders Issued November 10th 2011” (ECF No. 26) that Plaintiff, Leonardo RamosHernandez, submitted to and filed with the Court pro se on November 28, 2011.
The Court must construe Mr. Ramos-Hernandez’s filings liberally because he is a
pro se litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not act as a pro se
litigant’s advocate. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. The Court will construe the objection
as an objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). For the reasons stated
below, the objection will be overruled.
Pursuant to § 636(b)(1)(A), a judge may reconsider any pretrial matter
designated to a magistrate judge to hear and determine where it has been shown that
the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
In his motion to reconsider, Mr. Ramos-Hernandez clearly objects to the order of
November 10, 2011 (ECF No. 25), granting his motion for an extension of time (ECF
No. 20), denying his motion to seal (ECF No. 21), denying his motion to strike (ECF No.
22), directing him to file within thirty days a second and final amended complaint that
complied with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, requiring him to use to Court-approved complaint form available at
www.cod.uscourts.gov, informing him that the only proper filing in response to the
November 10 order was a second and final amended complaint, and warning Mr.
Ramos-Hernandez that, if he failed to comply with the November 10 order within the
time allowed, the amended complaint and action would be dismissed without further
notice.

2

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s November 10 order is neither clearly
erroneous nor contrary to law. Mr. Ramos-Hernandez’s objection will be overruled. By
this order, I will correct the typographical error in the caption to and first paragraph of
the November 10 order stating that Mr. Ramos-Hernandez filed his original complaint in
the name of Leonard Ramos. He filed his original complaint in the name of Leonardo
Ramos.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the document titled “Objection to Magistrate’s Orders Issued
November 10th 2011” (ECF No. 26) that Plaintiff, Leonardo Ramos-Hernandez,
submitted to and filed with the Court pro se on November 28, 2011, is construed
liberally as an objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and the objection is
overruled. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Ramos-Hernandez continues to have thirty (30)
days from the date of the order of November 10, 2011, in which to submit a second
and final amended complaint that complies with the directives of the November 10
order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, by this order, the Court corrects the typographical
error in the caption to and first paragraph of the order of November 10, 2011, stating
that Mr. Ramos-Hernandez filed his original complaint in the name of Leonard Ramos.
He filed his original complaint in the name of Leonardo Ramos.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

1st

day of

December

, 2011.

BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK
Senior Judge, United States District Court
3