Thomson Streett v. Ortiz et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by District Judge Martha Vazquez. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims are hereby dismissed withoutprejudice. (gr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

CHRISTEE THOMPSON STREETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIV 16-0189 MV/KBM

MANNY ORTIZ and JOHN CAMPBELL,
Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE
CHIEF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED
DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Christee Thompson Streett’s
(“Plaintiff’s) “Notice: Strike all unlawful Motion(s) and Order(s) entered the Streett Court
Cause of Action: the Administration of Property w/o right” (Doc. 21), filed November 21,
2016. Therein, Plaintiff makes various assertions, most of which are incomprehensible
to the Court, but which appear to relate to her purported property rights, this Court’s
jurisdiction, and the authority and jurisdiction of the “Streett Court.” Given the timing of
the filing of this Notice, the Court will construe it as objections to Chief Magistrate
Judge’s November 17, 2016 Proposed Findings and Recommended Deposition
(“PF&RD”) (Doc. 20), which alerted Plaintiff that any objections were due by November
28, 2016. See Doc. 20.
In her PF&RD, Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen recommended that Plaintiff’s
action be dismissed without prejudice. She noted that Plaintiff, as of the filing of the
PF&RD, had not provided any indication to the Court that she had served or attempted

to serve Defendants in this case, despite directives from the Court to do so by
November 1, 2016. See Doc. 20.
When a party files timely-written objections to a magistrate judge’s
recommendation, the district court will conduct a de novo review and “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(C). De novo review requires the district judge to
consider relevant evidence of record and not merely to review the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. In re Griego, 64 F.3d 580, 583-84 (10th Cir. 1995). “[A] party’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s [PF&RD] 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., with Buildings, Appurtenances,
Improvements, & Contents, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).
Here, the Court conducts a de novo review of the record and of Plaintiff’s Notice.
It finds that her Notice, like her previously-filed Response to the Court’s Order to Show
Cause, is nonsensical and unresponsive to the Court’s directive that she effect service
by November 1, 2016. In the only portion of her Notice that broaches the topic of
service, Plaintiff states:
i will charge the wrongful holder(s) $1.00 (one) dollar per minute said
property is not returned starting on the 22 day after they have received
their summons/notice to answer my suit/claim, attached to this suit,
Doc. 21 at ¶ 6. But this statement does not suggest that Plaintiff has effected or
attempted to effect service on Defendants. Rather, it suggests that she intends to
seek damages beginning on the 22nd day after she eventually effects service.
She makes no representation as to when she intends to serve Defendants; nor

2

does she show good cause for her failure to do so up to this point. Given this
Court’s clear and repeated warnings to Plaintiff that her case would be dismissed
if she failed to serve Defendants or to show good cause why she had not served
them, the undersigned agrees that dismissal is now appropriate.
Following its de novo review of the record, including Plaintiff’s Notice, the Court
overrules Plaintiff’s objections and adopts the Chief Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation to dismiss this matter without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Notice: Strike all unlawful
Motion(s) and Order(s) entered the Streett Court Cause of Action: the Administration of
Property w/o right,” which this Court construes as objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 20), is hereby OVERRULED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and
Recommended Disposition (Doc. 20) is hereby ADOPTED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims are hereby dismissed without
prejudice.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3