Espinoza-Horiuchi v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

Filing 30

ORDER Denying 17 Motion for Summary Judgment AND Approving and Adopting as an order of this court 20 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/31/2016.(cmira)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00219-REB-NYW
NADINE ESPINOZA-HORIUCHI,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALMART STORES, INC.
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#20],1 filed March 7, 2016. No objection having been filed to the
recommendation, I review it for plain error only. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2
I perceive no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s
recommended disposition. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the recommendation
should be approved and adopted. Plaintiff’s one-sentence, conclusory “motion” violates

1

“[#20]” 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 her
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)).

not only the rules cited by the magistrate judge in the recommendation, but also the
requirement of the local civil rules that “a motion involving a contested issue of law”must
“be supported by a recitation of legal authority in the motion.” D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).
I strongly reaffirm the magistrate’s judge’s admonition to plaintiff that she must
familiarize herself with all applicable rules that govern litigation and litigants in federal
court in this district and comply therewith. Further non-complying motions or other
submissions may be stricken.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#20], filed
March 7, 2016, is approved and adopted as an order of this court; and
2. That plaintiff’s related Motion for Summary Judgment [#17], filed March 3,
2016, is denied.
Dated March 31, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2