Nagim v. Suncor Energy Corp

Filing 6

ORDER Overruling Objection. ORDERED that Mr. Nagim's Motion to Appeal 4 is construed liberally as an Objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and is overruled. FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Nagim has 30 days from the date of this Order to comply with the 1/4/12 Order, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/13/12. (lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03363-BNB
RONALD J. NAGIM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SUNCOR ENERGY,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

At issue is the Motion to Appeal that Mr. Nagim, a pro se litigant, filed with the
Court on January 9, 2012. In the Motion, Mr. Nagim objects to Magistrate Judge Boyd
N. Boland’s January 4, 2012 Order that instructs him to submit his claims on a Courtapproved form used in filing civil complaints and to show cause why he should not be
denied leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
The Court will construe the Motion liberally as an Objection filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under § 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. For the reasons
stated below, the Objection will be overruled.
Mr. Nagim’s arguments are convoluted and provide no grounds for finding the
January 4, 2012 Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. To the extent Mr. Nagim
requests that Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland recuse himself from this case,
Magistrate Judge Boland has addressed this issue and denied Mr. Nagim’s request.

This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Boland that nothing Mr. Nagim asserts in the
Objection meets the objective standard for disqualification required pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 455(a). Magistrate Judge Boland is authorized to conduct the initial review in
this case pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 8.1.C.. Mr. Nagim’s Objection, therefore, will be
overruled. Mr. Nagim is instructed to comply with the January 4 Order or the action will
be dismissed for failure to cure the deficiencies and to show cause. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Mr. Nagim’s Motion to Appeal (Doc. No. 4), filed on January 9,
2012, is construed liberally as an Objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and is overruled. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Nagim has thirty days from the date of this
Order to comply with the January 4, 2012 Order. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that if Mr. Nagim fails to comply with the January 4, 2012
Order, as directed, the action will be dismissed without further notice.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

13th

day of

January

, 2012.

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

2