From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrington v. Wilson

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Sep 25, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01858-EWN-MJW (D. Colo. Sep. 25, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01858-EWN-MJW.

September 25, 2006


ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION AND STRIKING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS THERETO


On September 22, 2006, this court prematurely entered an Order (#74) accepting the assigned magistrate judge's recommendation that all claims against all Defendants be dismissed. The Order was premature, because Plaintiff's time for objecting to the recommendation had not yet expired. Noting this, Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration (#75) and filed objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. (##76, 77). The motion for reconsideration will be granted, but the objections will be stricken. The case will stand as dismissed with prejudice.

It is hard to imagine a more frivolous, burdensome, prolix, senseless, and harassing filing than the one containing Plaintiff's objections. The objections themselves are spread over 2,610 pages, and the exhibits occupy an additional sixty pages. The bulk of the filing consists of an apparently random mixture of copies of cases and exhibits. It is impossible to follow or make sense of this heap, and any attempt to do so would require abandonment of all other cases. The assigned magistrate judge has performed yeoman service in reviewing the case and making a thorough recommendation. The objections to the recommendation are "redundant, immaterial, [and] impertinent," Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) and will be stricken. The court has once again conducted the requisite de novo review of the issues and the recommendation. Based on this review, the court still has concluded that the recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. The motion for reconsideration (#75) is GRANTED.

2. The objections (##76, 77) are STRICKEN.

3. The recommendation is ACCEPTED.
4. Defendant Christy Ryan's Motion to Dismiss (#25) is GRANTED.
5. The Fyfe Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#29) is GRANTED.
6. Defendant Madeline Wilson and the Law Office of Madeline Wilson's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (#38) is GRANTED.
7. The State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (##39 and 42) are GRANTED.
8. The case is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice.
9. The Plaintiff's Emergency Forthwith Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Sanctions (#52) is DENIED.


Summaries of

Harrington v. Wilson

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Sep 25, 2006
Civil Action No. 05-cv-01858-EWN-MJW (D. Colo. Sep. 25, 2006)
Case details for

Harrington v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:SEAN HARRINGTON, Plaintiff, v. MADELINE WILSON and the "LAW OFFICE OF…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Sep 25, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 05-cv-01858-EWN-MJW (D. Colo. Sep. 25, 2006)