Adams v. FedEx Ground/Home Delivery

Filing 60

ORDER re: 58 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Granting 26 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. This action is dismissed in its entirety, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/21/2013. (eseam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS
LaFAYE ADAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FED EX GROUND/HOME DELIVERY,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________

This case is before me on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc 26) be granted
and this case be dismissed in its entirety. The Recommendation was issued and served
on March 1, 2013. Plaintiff has filed timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation. I therefore review the Recommendation de novo in light of the file and
record in this case.
The Plaintiff argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying the Doctrine of
Collateral Estoppel to her claims based upon a prior final arbitration which denied her
claims also asserted here. She also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in his
determination that her Third Claim for Relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must otherwise
be dismissed, the Magistrate Judge erred in his determination that her claim under the
Equality Act of 2010 must otherwise be dismissed, that the Magistrate Judge erred in his
determination that her claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act must otherwise

be dismissed, that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of her economic
duress claim, and that the Magistrate Judge erred in recommending dismissal of her claim
for declaratory judgment.
I have reviewed her specific timely objections de novo and conclude that the
Magistrate Judge’s thorough and comprehensive recommendation is correct in all respects
including his application of the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel to her case and his
application of analysis to her Third, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Claims.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint (Doc 26) is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED in its entirety.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
DATED:

March 21, 2013