Driskell v. Thompson et al

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 10 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; and plaintiff's Motion for Ex Parte Order for Temporary Injunction/Restraining Order 4 is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/8/13. (kfinn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03107-REB-KLM
ROBERT J. DRISKELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRUCE R. THOMPSON, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), doing business as CFO Bruce
R. Thompson Bank of America, N.A, and
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al, and
John Doe 1-100, successor by merger BAC Home Loans Serving, LP, formerly known
as Countrywide Home Loans, LP,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#10],1 filed December 3, 2012. No objection having been filed to the
recommendation, I review it for plain error only.2 See Morales-Fernandez v.

1

“[#10]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
2

The docket reflects that the recommendation was mailed to plaintiff at his address of record on
December 4, 2012. The mail was returned as undeliverable on December 10 [#14], with a notation that
the forwarding order had expired. That same day, the clerk remailed the recommendation to the PO box
noted on the envelope to be the appropriate forwarding address [#15]. The following day, December 11,
2012, plaintiff submitted a letter to the court suggesting that he had not received the recommendation
[#14]. That letter bears the original address from which mail has been returned as undeliverable.
Moreover, neither the recommendation nor any other mail has been returned from the new address,
leading me to conclude that plaintiff has received adequate notice of the magistrate judge’s recommended
disposition and has had the benefit of the full time required by law to respond thereto.

Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).3
Finding no such error in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I find and
conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#10], filed
December 3, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; and
2. That plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte Order for Temporary
Injunction/Restraining Order [#4], filed November 28, 2012, is DENIED.
Dated January 18 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I continue to construe
his pleadings and papers with the judicial munificence due a pro se party. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551
U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076
(10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

2