Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02190-PAB-MEH
12-14-2020
STEPHEN SUSINKA, Plaintiff, v. A. TRUJILLO, Lieutenant, and J. WILCOX, Correctional Officer, Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case (ECF 69). This is Plaintiff's third request to file an amended complaint in this lawsuit. The Court finds that no further briefing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See D.C.Colo.LCivR 7.1(d). I respectfully recommend that the Honorable Philip A. Brimmer deny the Motion, for the following reasons.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)). --------
Plaintiff's first such request was denied without prejudice, and the case was closed. ECF 62. Rather than raise his claims in a new lawsuit, he again asked to file an amended complaint. Because the law requires him to file a new lawsuit, I recommended that the request be denied. ECF 65. Plaintiff did not object to that Recommendation.
Plaintiff cites no legal authority for why his present request should be granted and this case be reopened. He only discusses obstacles to writing and filing the amended complaint he is trying to pursue. However, those concerns do not change the requirement that he assert his claims in the form of an initial complaint in a new lawsuit rather than in an amended complaint in this now closed case.
Accordingly, for these reasons and those stated in the prior Recommendation (ECF 65), this Court respectfully recommends that Judge Brimmer deny Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case (ECF 69).
Respectfully submitted at Denver, Colorado, this 14th day of December, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge