Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-01883-RM-KLM
06-17-2021
THOMAS A. DORN, Plaintiff, v. MEREDITH AVERY, and LILLIAN AVERY, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS
Raymond P. Moore, Judge
This matter is before the Court on the following two motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) Motion for Judgment (ECF No. 41); and (2) Motion and Order (ECF No. 42). The Court finds no further briefing is required before ruling on these motions. See D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(d).
In reviewing Plaintiff's motions the Court is mindful that Plaintiff proceeds pro se; therefore, the Court construes Plaintiff's filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). Nonetheless, the Court does not serve as Plaintiff's advocate, see Gallagher v. Shelton, 587 F.3d 1063, 1067 (10th Cir. 2009), and he is required to follow the same procedural rules as counseled parties. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se status ‘does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.'” (citation omitted)). Even after a liberal review, the Court finds no grounds to grant Plaintiff any relief.
To start, Plaintiff fails to identify the legal basis for his motions. For example, if Plaintiff is seeking summary judgment on any of his claims, he must comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 and the applicable law. Concurrently, Plaintiff relies on conclusory allegations without any evidentiary support or legal authority. It is axiomatic that simply saying that something is so, even repeatedly, does not make it so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions seeking a judgment of $10 million dollars based on allegation of “[t]he girl” confessing to stealing his identity, and a judgment of mental distress and negligence against Defendants for allegedly violating his quiet enjoyment, are denied.
The Court cautions Plaintiff that any requests for relief must be well grounded in fact and warranted by the law. Any future motions which contain nothing more than conclusory requests may be summarily denied. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED
(1) That the Motion for Judgment (ECF No. 41) is DENIED; and
(2) That the Motion and Order (ECF No. 42) is DENIED.