Locke v. Fedex Corp, et al.,

Filing 60

ORDER adopting 43 Report and Recommendations; denying 24 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint; the clerk of the court SHALL ARRANGE and COORDINATE service of a summons and the complaint; the deadline for service on Mr. Jones is EXTENDED to May 24, 2013. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/21/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00708-REB-MEH
ANTHONY D. LOCKE, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDEX FREIGHT, INC.,
CARL PETERMAN,
JEFF W. STAMM,
BILL LOFTUS,
BOB MORELAND,
TONY TALIERCIO, and
JON S. JONES,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendant Jon S. Jones’ Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [#24]1 filed June 6, 2010; and the
corresponding Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#43] filed
August 31, 2012. Mr. Jones filed objections [#44] to the recommendation. I overrule
the objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
The plaintiff is acting pro se. Therefore, I construe his filings generously and with
the leniency due pro se litigants, see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007);

1

“[#24]” 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.

Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Belmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendations to which Mr. Jones objects. I have considered carefully the
recommendations, the objections, and the applicable case law.
In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Jones argues that this court does not have personal
jurisdiction over him. The magistrate judge analyzed thoroughly the law and
considerations relevant to the question of personal jurisdiction. Ultimately, the
magistrate judge concludes that, given the circumstances of this case and the
applicable law, this court properly may assert specific jurisdiction over Mr. Jones. No
doubt, this case explores the limits of personal jurisdiction. Ultimately, however, I find
that the conclusions and recommendation of the magistrate judge on this issue are
legally correct.
Mr. Jones argues also that he has not properly been served with process in this
case. The magistrate judge concludes that Mr. Jones has not been served properly.
Because the plaintiff is acting pro se, the court undertook to arrange for service on the
defendants named in this case. The magistrate judge recommends that a second
attempt to serve Mr. Jones at his correct address be made. Under applicable law, this
recommendation is proper.
Mr. Jones’ objections address both of the issues summarized above. Although
well-stated, I conclude that Mr. Jones’ objections do not vitiate the conclusions and
recommendations of the magistrate judge. Therefore, I overrule the objections.

2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#43] filed
August 31, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections of defendant Jon S. Jones as stated in [#44] are
OVERRULED;
3. That Defendant Jon S. Jones’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint [#24] filed June 6, 2010, is DENIED;
4. That the clerk of the court SHALL ARRANGE and COORDINATE service of
a summons and the complaint on defendant Jon S. Jones or a waiver of service on
behalf of defendant Jon S. Jones; and
5. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), the deadline for service on Mr. Jones is
EXTENDED to May 24, 2013, subject to further extension for good cause.
Dated March 21, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3