George v. Riggin et al
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Denying 6 Answer to Show Cause and Amended Notice of Removal-Motion for Leave to File Late Notice of Removal per 28 U.S.C. 1445(b)(1); 9 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge is Approved and Adopted as an Order of this Court. This case is Remanded to the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado. Signed by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/15/2016.(cmira)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00218-KLM
MARY ANN GEORGE,
KURT RIGGIN, and
SHAWN ELKEHANNA GLAZER,
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Answer to Show Cause and
Amended Notice of Removal - Motion for Leave To File Late Notice of Removal
per 28 U.S.C. 1445(b)(1) [#6]1 filed March 16, 2015; and (2) the Order and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#9] filed December 14, 2015.
No objections to the recommendation was filed. Therefore, I review the
recommendation for plain error only.2 See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much
“[#6]” 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.
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 (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 (1972)).
less plain error, in the recommendation, I find and conclude that recommendation
should be approved and adopted.
The defendant, Kurt Riggin, filed a notice of removal [#1] removing this civil case
from state court. Concerned that the notice of removal does not demonstrate that this
court has jurisdiction over this case, the magistrate judge issued an order to show
cause [#4] directing Mr. Riggin to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In his response [#5], Mr. Riggin fails to establish any
basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this case. In her recommendation [#9],
the magistrate judge details cogently the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. I concur,
and, thus, approve and adopt the recommendation.
In his Answer to Show Cause and Amended Notice of Removal - Motion for
Leave To File Late Notice of Removal per 28 U.S.C. 1445(b)(1) [#6], Mr. Riggin
seeks, effectively, to amend his answer to the order to show cause to add some
additional information. I have reviewed the motion [#6] and conclude none of the
additional information affects the validity of the analysis and conclusions of the
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the recommendation stated in the Order and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge [#9] filed December 14, 2015, is approved and
adopted as an order of this court; and
2. That the Answer to Show Cause and Amended Notice of Removal Motion for Leave To File Late Notice of Removal per 28 U.S.C. 1445(b)(1) [#6] is
3. That this case is remanded to the District Court of Jefferson County,
Colorado, where it was filed initially as Case No. 2006 C 011544; and
4. That this case is closed.
Dated March 15, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?