Wirth v. Hickenlooper, et al

Filing 75

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 69 and Denying 62 Motion for TRO, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/13/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03309-REB-KMT
MARTIN THOMAS WIRTH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, in his official capacity as Governor of Colorado, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#69],1 filed June 23, 2014. No objections having been filed to the
recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 I find no
error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition. Even if
all the usual requirements warranting the extraordinary remedy of a temporary
restraining order were satisfied in this case – which they are not – the entry of such an

1

“[#69]” 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.
2

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 have construed his
pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. 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)).

order clearly is precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as detailed in the
recommendation. I therefore find and conclude that the magistrate judge’s
recommendation should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#69], filed June
23, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; and
2. That plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
Pursuant to Rule 65(b) [#62], filed June 2, 2014, is DENIED.
Dated August 13, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2