Riggle v. Lagrand

Full title: TIMMY C. RIGGLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TARA LaGRAND, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Aug 9, 2006

Civil Case No. 05-cv-02104-REB-PAC (D. Colo. Aug. 9, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 05-cv-02104-REB-PAC.

August 9, 2006

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT BLACKBURN, District Judge

This matter is before me on: 1) Bridge's motion to sever (treated as a motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(c)) [#5], filed November 29, 2005; 2) Lentz's motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) and (6) [#13], filed December 20, 2005; 3) plaintiffs' motion for severance/dismissal of C. Collis Redd [#17], filed December 27, 2005; 4) Marks' motion to dismiss [#21], filed January 10, 2006; 5) a letter docketed as a motion for leave to appear [#28], filed January 25, 2006; and 6) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#37], filed February 16, 2006. On March 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an objection [#44] to the recommendation.

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, the objection, and the applicable case law. In addition, because the 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. Belmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10^th Cir. 1991). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, the authorities cited, and the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation proposed by the Magistrate Judge should be approved and adopted, and that the plaintiffs' objections should be overruled.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#37], filed February 16, 2006, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the plaintiffs' objections to the recommendation, as stated in their Letter in Objection to the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge [#44], filed March 30, 2006, are OVERRULED and DENIED;

3. That the plaintiffs' motion for severance/dismissal of C. Collis Redd [#17], filed December 27, 2005, is GRANTED, and that all claims against defendant C. Collis Redd are DISMISSED;

4. That defendant Richard Marks' motion to dismiss [#21], filed January 10, 2006, and treated as a motion under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1), is GRANTED;

5. That the plaintiffs' complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

6. That defendant Bridge's motion to sever (treated as a motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(c)) [#5], filed November 29, 2005, is DENIED as moot;

7. That defendant Roy Lentz's motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2) and (6) [#13], filed December 20, 2005, is DENIED as moot;

8. That the letter docketed as a motion for leave to appear [#28], filed January 25, 2006, is DENIED as moot;

9. That any other pending motions, including the motions docketed as docket numbers [#14] and [#39], are DENIED as moot; and

10. That this case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.