Hull v. Beverage Distributors Company, LLC
Filing
81
ORDER The Magistrate Judges February 14, 2013 Recommendation ECF No. 78 is ADOPTED; Plaintiffs Objection ECF No. 80 to the Recommendation is OVERRULED; Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ECF No. 42 is GRANTED; Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint ECF No. 65 is DENIED; Plaintiffs claims in this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Each party shall bear their own costs; and The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal, by Judge William J. Martinez on 3/8/2013.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03287-WJM-KMT
CARLOS R. HULL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS COMPANY, LLC,
TOM ROGERS,
JOHN JOHNSON,
LINDA HOLLMAN,
TED HALEY, and
BRYAN LEVINS,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION, ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on the February 14, 2013 Recommendation by
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 78) that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 42) be
granted and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 65) be denied. The
Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation issued in this case substantively addressed: (1) whether
Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims was preempted by Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act; (2) whether Plaintiff’s hybrid Section 301 claim was barred
by the applicable statute of limitations; (3) whether Plaintiff’s employee handbook
formed an implied contract; and (4) whether allowing Plaintiff to amend his complaint
would be futile. (ECF No. 78.)
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were
due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF
No. 78 at 18-19.) Plaintiff filed a timely document that he titles as an objection to the
Recommendation. (ECF No. 80.) However, he does not substantively dispute any of
the Magistrate Judge’s findings or conclusions. Rather, Plaintiff’s objection raises two
arguments: (1) because Plaintiff has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate
Judge, it was improper for the Court to refer the Motion to Dismiss to the Magistrate
Judge for a recommendation; and (2) Plaintiff requested a jury trial and, therefore,
pursuant to the Seventh Amendment, is entitled to have his case tried by a jury. (Id.)
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court.”
United States v. 2121 East 30th Street, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff
makes no specific objection to any aspect of the Magistrate Judge’s construction of the
facts or analysis of the law. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not filed
sufficiently specific objections to cause the Court to review the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation de novo. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.
1991) (court has discretion to review the recommendation under whatever standard it
deems appropriate when no specific and timely objections are filed); Smith v. Krieger,
643 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1278-79 (D. Colo. 2009) (“For an objection to be sufficiently
specific, it must enable the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and
legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”)
2
Having reviewed the Recommendation and other relevant portions of the record,
the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and
that there is no clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note
(“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Thus, the
Court adopts the Recommendation, grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and denies
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend.
With respect to the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court notes that
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(b) permits it to refer a motion to dismiss to a Magistrate Judge for
a recommended disposition. The Court has the authority to do so even when the
parties have not consented the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. In fact, had the
parties so consented, the Magistrate Judge would have simply ruled on the Motion to
Dismiss; there would have been no reason to issue a Recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
As to Plaintiff’s second argument, the law is clear that the right to trial by jury is
not absolute. See J.R. Simplot v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 563 F.3d 1102, 1117 (10th Cir.
2009) (“The law is well-settled that summary judgment does not violate the Seventh
Amendment.”). The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted and, on this basis, recommended that the case be
dismissed. (ECF No. 78 at 17.) The dismissal of Plaintiff’s case based on this finding
does not violate the Seventh Amendment because such a findings means that no
triable issues exists to be submitted to a jury. See Shannon v. Graves, 257 F.3d 1164,
1167 (10th Cir. 2001) (Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial not violated where “no
3
triable issue exists to be submitted to a jury.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.
The Magistrate Judge’s February 14, 2013 Recommendation (ECF No. 78) is
ADOPTED;
2.
Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 80) to the Recommendation is OVERRULED;
3.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 42)
is GRANTED;
4.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 65) is DENIED;
5.
Plaintiff’s claims in this case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
6.
The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants. Each party shall bear
their own costs; and
7.
The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in
good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of
any appeal.
Dated this 8th day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
4
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?