Opinion
Civil Case No. 06-cv-00609-REB-MJW.
May 16, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The matters before are (1) the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Complaint on 4/6/2006 (Docket No. 3) [#9], filed April 28, 2006; and (2) plaintiffs' objections as stated in their Response to Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Complaint on 4/6/2006 (Docket No. 3) [#10], filed May 9, 2006. I overrule the objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which cognizable objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the recommendation, the objections, and the applicable case law. In addition, because plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, I have construed their pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Plaintiffs' objections are imponderous and without merit. Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
Although I refer to plaintiffs in the plural, I agree with the magistrate judge's conclusion that the corporate plaintiffs cannot be represented before this court other than by counsel. (Recommendation at 2.)
I note that while not pleaded as a basis for federal jurisdiction, plaintiffs have alleged federal RICO claims against several of the defendants. Nevertheless, even reading the complaint liberally, it fails to allege all the elements of a RICO claim, much less with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). See Farlow v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co., 956 F.2d 982, 989 (10th Cir. 1992); Brooks v. Bank of Boulder, 891 F.Supp. 1469, 1476 (D. Colo. 1995).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Complaint on 4/6/2006 (Docket No. 3) [#9], filed April 28, 2006, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; and
2. That plaintiffs' objections to the recommendation contained in their Response to Recommendation on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Complaint on 4/6/2006 (Docket No. 3) [#10], filed May 9, 2006, are OVERRULED and DENIED.