Mathison v. USA et al

Filing 74

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending further order of the Court. IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that this case be administratively closedpursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/29/15. (morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-03345-RM-KLM
EUGENE H. MATHISON,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHRISTOPHER WILSON, D.O.,
RONALD CAMACHO, P.A., M.L.P.,
MARK KELLAR, R.N., HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN.,
D. ALLRED, D.O., CLINICAL DIRECTOR,
GEORGE SANTINI, M.D., and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Bankruptcy Filing [#73]1 (the
“Notice”). The Notice informs the Court that Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition
on August 24, 2015. Notice [#73] at 1. As a result, this case is stayed pursuant to 11
U.S.C. § 362.
The duration of the stay that will be required in this case is presently unclear. This
Court routinely administratively closes cases pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2 when a
case would otherwise be stayed for an indefinite period of time. See, e.g., Mauchlin v.

1

“[#73]” 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 and Recommendation.

1

Zhon, No. 12-cv-01449-RM-BNB, 2015 WL 479042, at *1 (D. Colo. Feb. 3, 2015)
(administratively closing case “subject to reopening for good cause subsequent to Plaintiff’s
vision problems being addressed”); San Juan Cable LLC v. DISH Network LLC, No. 14-mc00261-RM-MJW, 2015 WL 500631, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 2015) (administratively closing
case “to be reopened only if the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico refers a
related enforcement matter to this Court”); Workalemahu v. Heritage Club, No. 14-cv02396-RM-MEH, 2015 WL 293261, at *1 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2015) (administratively closing
case pending arbitration).
The Tenth Circuit has construed an administrative closure to be “the practical
equivalent of a stay.” Quinn, 828 F.2d at 1465 n.2 (10th Cir.1987). In Lehman v.
Revolution Portfolio LLC, 166 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 1999), the First Circuit explained the nature
of administrative closure as follows:
Administrative closings comprise a familiar, albeit essentially ad hoc, way in
which courts remove cases from their active files without making any final
adjudication. The method is used in various districts throughout the nation
in order to shelve pending, but dormant, cases.
Id. at 392 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The First Circuit further
explained that “an administrative closing has no effect other than to remove a case from
the court’s active docket and permit the transfer of records associated with the case to an
appropriate storage repository [and] . . . d[oes] not terminate the underlying case, but,
rather, place[s] it in inactive status until such time as the judge, in his discretion or at the
request of a party, cho[o]se[s] either to reactivate it or to dispose of it with finality.” Id.
In this case, the Court finds that administrative closure is appropriate because it is
unclear how long it will be before the bankruptcy case is adjudicated. Therefore, the Court
2

recommends that the case be administratively closed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
For the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED pending further order of the
Court.
IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED that this case be administratively closed
pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2.
IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties shall have fourteen
(14) days after service of this Recommendation to serve and file any written objections in
order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. A
party’s failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the
Recommendation by the District Judge, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.
Makin v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91
F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996). A party’s objections to this Recommendation must
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the District Court or
for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th
Cir. 1996).
Dated: December 29, 2015

3