Duncan v. Ritter Jr. et al
Filing
58
ORDER overruling 56 Objection to Report and Recommendations filed by James Roger Duncan, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/22/2014. (trlee, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00301-REB-BNB
JAMES ROGER DUNCAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILL RITTER, JR., ex-governor,
JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, governor,
RICK RAEMISCH, executive director,
WARDEN MILYARD,
WARDEN FALK, and
CASE MANAGER LUECK,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO ORDER
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Boland [sic]
“Order” Dated August 6, 2014 [#56],1 filed August 18, 2014, which objects to the
magistrate judge’s Order [#54], filed August 6, 2014, denying plaintiff’s Motion for
Amendment to Complaint and Introducing New Evidence [#54], filed July 9, 2014. I
overrule plaintiff’s objection.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have reviewed his motion more liberally than
pleadings or papers filed by attorneys. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127
S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92
S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir.
1
“[#56]” 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.
2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff’s objection pertains to non-dispositive matters that have been referred to the
magistrate judge for resolution. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), I may
modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s order which I find to be clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.
Nevertheless, having reviewed the magistrate judge’s order and the apposite motion,
and having considered plaintiff’s objection, I conclude that the magistrate judge’s order is
not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A motion to amend the complaint must include a
copy of the proposed amendment. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(b). Because plaintiff failed
to do so, his motion was properly denied. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th
Cir. 1992) (pro se litigant “must follow same rules of procedure as govern other litigants”),
cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1336 (1993). Moreover, although plaintiff urges the court not to
dismiss this case, the magistrate judge’s decision works no such outcome. The motion for
leave to amend was denied without prejudice, so that plaintiff is not precluded from seeking
amendment provided he complies with all applicable rules in doing so.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate Judge
Boland [sic] “Order” Dated August 6, 2014 [#56], filed August 18, 2014, is OVERRULED.
Dated August 22, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?