Pinson v. Pacheco

Full title: JEREMY PINSON, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT PACHECO, SARA REVELL, MERRY WILNER…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Nov 19, 2010

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01377-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Nov. 19, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-01377-REB-MJW.

November 19, 2010

ORDER

ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge

The matters before me are (1) plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order [#67] filed November 12, 2010; and (2) plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) [#47] filed September 24, 2010. I grant the motion to reconsider. Nevertheless, having considered those objections, I find no basis for amending my prior ruling approving and adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited:

Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.

Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10^th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Here, I apparently overlooked, albeit inadvertently, plaintiff's substantive objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. Reconsideration of my order adopting that recommendation, therefore, is proper.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10^th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff's objections are imponderous and without merit.

Therefore, I find no basis for amending my prior Order Overruling Objections to and Adopting Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#65] entered November 1, 2010.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order [#67] filed November 12, 2010, is GRANTED; and

2. That the objections stated in plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 42) [#47], filed September 24, 2010, are OVERRULED.

Dated November 19, 2010, at Denver, Colorado.