Hermann v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company
ORDER adopting 126 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge; denying 113 First Motion To Amend the Complaint. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/7/2015.(mlace, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03188-REB-MEH
HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The matters before me are (1) the First Motion To Amend the Complaint
[#113]1 filed May 14, 2015; and (2) the related Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#126] filed June 19, 2015. No objections to the recommendation
were filed. Therefore, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding
no error, much less plain error, in the recommendation, I find and conclude that
recommendation should be approved and adopted. Thus, the motion to amend is
The plaintiff filed the motion to amend [#113] acting pro se. Thus, I have
construed his pleadings and other filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent
“[#113]” 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.
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
On April 28, 2015, counsel for the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw. Order
[#108]. Contemporaneously, the plaintiff filed the motion to amend the complaint
[#113], and motions [#109, #115] seeking appointment of pro bono counsel to represent
him. The court endeavored to find pro bono counsel who would accept an appointment
to represent the plaintiff. However, the court was unable to locate pro bono counsel.
Orders [#121, #133]. Although the plaintiff has filed motions acting pro se, he did not
file objections to the recommendation. For the reasons cited by the magistrate judge,
the pending motion to amend the complaint is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#126] filed
June 19, 2015, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; and
2. That the related First Motion To Amend the Complaint [#113] filed May 14,
2015, is denied.
Dated October 7, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?