Opinion
Civil Case No. 09-cv-03040-REB-MEH
08-10-2011
LEONID SHIFRIN a/k/a LEO SHIFRIN, Plaintiff, v. ERIN TOLL, MARCIA WATERS, PAUL MARTINEZ, CARY WHITAKER, Defendants.
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
This matter is matter before me on the following: (1) Defendants' Amended Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint [#65] filed December 2, 2010; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To Second Amend Complaint [#76] filed April 11, 2011; and (3) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#79] filed July 1, 2011. The plaintiff, Leonid Shifrin, filed objections [#80] to the recommendation. I overrule the objections and approve and adopt the recommendation.
"[#65]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
Because the plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings and other filings 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 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
The plaintiff's complaint concerns the denial by officials of the State of Colorado of the plaintiff's application for mortgage broker registration. The plaintiff asserts an equal protection claim in his first amended complaint [#45]. In his motion [#76] to amend his complaint, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to clarify certain factual allegations. Specifically, the plaintiff seeks to add allegations that the defendants acted with malice. In addition, in support of his equal protection claim, the plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to describe an additional individual who the plaintiff claims is situated similarly to the plaintiff. I agree with the conclusion of the magistrate judge that the motion to amend should be denied. I agree also with the detailed analysis of the magistrate judge that supports his conclusion that the plaintiff's first amended complaint [#45] must be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
None of the objections [#80] stated by the plaintiff serves to undermine the reasoning and conclusions of the magistrate judge. In addition, I find and conclude that the plaintiff has not demonstrated a valid basis to stay ruling on the motion to dismiss to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery. That request, as stated in the planitiff's objection [#80], is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#79] filed July 1, 2011, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To Second Amend Complaint [#76] filed April 11, 2011, is DENIED;
3. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), the Defendants' Amended Motion To Dismiss First Amended Complaint [#65] filed December 2, 2010, is GRANTED;
4. That the objections stated by the plaintiff in Plaintiff's Opposition to Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, Request for De-Novo Review by U.S. District Court Judge, and in the Alternative Request for Delay in Ruling on Defendant's Motion To Conduct Discover Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(d) [#80] filed July 18, 2011, are OVERRULED;
5. That the plaintiff's request to stay ruling on the motion to dismiss to permit the plaintiff to conduct discovery, as stated in Plaintiff's Opposition to Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge, Request for De-Novo Review by U.S. District Court Judge, and in the Alternative Request for Delay in Ruling on Defendant's Motion To Conduct Discover Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 56(d) [#80] filed July 18, 2011, is DENIED;
6. That JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Erin Toll, Marcia Waters, Paul Martinez, and Cary Whitaker, and against the plaintiff, Leonid Shifrin a/k/a Leo Shifrin;
7. That the defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court under FED. R. CIV. P.54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and
8. That this case is CLOSED.
Dated August 10, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge