Burgess v. Daniels et al

Filing 7

ORDER overruling 6 Motion for Change of Venue and Objection to Magistrate [Judge']s IFP Order by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/3/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02191-BNB
COREY BURGESS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES A. DANIELS (individual/official),
PAUL M. LAIRD, (individual/official),
CHARLES E. SAMUELS, (individual/official),
MATT THOMPSON, (individual/official),
C.O. EXINA (individual/official),
PAUL A. KASTNER (individual/official),
J. A. KELLER (individual/official),
ERIC HOLDER (individual/official), and
U.S. D.O.J./F.B.O.P. (individual/official),
Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

This matter is before the Court on the combination motion titled “Motion for
Change of Venue and Objection to Magistrate [Judge’]s IFP Order” (ECF No. 6) filed
pro se on August 27, 2013, by Plaintiff, Corey Burgess. Mr. Burgess is a prisoner in the
custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons who currently is incarcerated at the United
States Penitentiary, High Security, in Florence, Colorado.
Mr. Burgess objects to Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland’s order of August 19,
2013 (ECF No. 4), granting his Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3) because he contends this Court has no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint he filed in this Court. The motion for

change of venue will be addressed in a separate order.
The Court must construe liberally the August 27 motion because Mr. Burgess is
not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972);
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court should not
be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated
below, the August 27 motion, to the extent it objects to the order granting Mr. Burgess
leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915, will be overruled.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 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. The Court has
reviewed the file and finds that Magistrate Judge Boland’s August 19 order granting
Plaintiff leave to proceed pursuant to § 1915 is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Therefore, the objection will be overruled.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion titled “Motion for Change of Venue and Objection to
Magistrate [Judge’]s IFP Order” (ECF No. 6) filed pro se on August 27, 2013, by
Plaintiff, Corey Burgess, and which the Court has construed liberally as an objection
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), is overruled.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

3rd

day of

September

, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
2