Gay v. Rojas

Full title: BYRON KYLE GAY Plaintiff, v. DANNY ROJAS, KRIS KRONCKE, and JOHN DOES 1-5…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 8, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03128-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. Aug. 8, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03128-WJM-MEH

08-08-2012

BYRON KYLE GAY Plaintiff, v. DANNY ROJAS, KRIS KRONCKE, and JOHN DOES 1-5 Defendants.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION SEEKING RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

On July 9, 2012, the Court adopted Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty's Recommendation and granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, finding that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (ECF No. 54.) In that Order, the Court noted that the time for filing objections to Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation had run and no objections had been filed by either party. (Id. at 1.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Relief from Judgment. (ECF No. 56.) In the Motion, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive a copy of Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation and therefore could not file an objection. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff contends that, if he had notice of the Recommendation, he could have shown that his claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. (Id.)

The Court's docket shows that the Recommendation was returned as undeliverable because it was "refused." (ECF No. 51.) Thus, it appears that the Court attempted to serve a copy of the Recommendation on Plaintiff and that he declined to receive the same. More importantly, however, Plaintiff has had an opportunity to put forth his position on the limitations issue. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in which he set forth his argument as to why his claims are not barred by the statute of limitations. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiff also submitted evidence in support of his argument. (ECF Nos. 40-1, 40-2, 40-3.) Before adopting Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation, the Court considered both Plaintiff's arguments and evidence but did not find either persuasive. (ECF No. 54 at 2-3.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any basis as to why this matter should be reopened so as to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file objections to Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion Seeking Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 56) is DENIED. This action shall remain closed.

BY THE COURT:

__________________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge