Opinion
Civil Action 19-cv-00154-CMA-KLM
06-21-2021
HUNTER ADAM MELNICK, Plaintiff, v. RICK RAEMISCH, KAYLA JOHNSTON DEAN GONZALES, SUSAN WHITE, CHAMOIS FANELLIS-ARMENTROUT, JOE WHITE, JOE THISTLEWOOD, NICOLE JIMENEZ, OMER GARCIA, BRANDON MATHEWS, AHO WATERS COLORADO STATE BOARD OF PAROLE, SHEILA, BRYCE GILMORE, TAMMIS JAHN, RSA INC., AUARORA MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, and STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants.
ORDER
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. # 104) to Judge Mix's Order (Doc. # 101) granting Defendants' Motion to Quash Service (Doc. # 66). For the following reasons, the Objection is overruled and the Order is affirmed.
In August 2020, Plaintiff attempted to serve three of the defendants - Aurora Comprehensive Community Mental Health Center, Inc. (AuMCH), Bryce Gilmour, and “Sheila” (whose last name does not appear in the Complaint) - by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint with a front-desk employee at one of AuMHC's locations. (Docs. ## 48-50). These Defendants moved to quash the Summons. (Doc. # 66). Defendants argued that, because Gilmour and Sheila had not been personally served and AuMHC had not received service through its registered agent, service was improper under F.R.C.P. 4(e). This Court referred the Motion to Magistrate Judge Mix, who agreed with Defendants and quashed the Summons. (Doc. # 101).
Plaintiff now challenges Judge Mix's ruling. He argues that he was arrested shortly after the Motion was filed, and that, as a result of his arrest, he “had no opportunity to respond” to the Motion. (Doc. # 104). Therefore, he argues, Judge Mix should not have granted the Motion. The Court disagrees.
Under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court may reverse a magistrate judge's decision on a non-dispositive matter only if the decision is found to be “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” F.R.C.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff does not identify any legal errors in Judge Mix's ruling, and he offers no evidence to suggest that service was proper. The Court has reviewed Judge Mix's ruling and finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. # 104) and AFFIRMS Judge Mix's Order Granting the Motion to Quash (Doc. # 101).