Von Hallcy v. Bartsch

Full title: BILLY VON HALLCY, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT BARTSCH, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Aug 31, 2012

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00534-CMA-MJW (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00534-CMA-MJW

08-31-2012

BILLY VON HALLCY, Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT BARTSCH, Defendant.

Christine M. Arguello

Judge Christine M. Arguello

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING AUGUST 1, 2012

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 16.) On August 1, 2012, Judge Watanabe issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 29), advising the Court to deny Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Pleading (Doc. # 18) and to grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 20). On August 14, 2012, Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 30.)

When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to." In conducting its review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.

In the instant case, Plaintiff does not "properly object[]" to any part of the Recommendation. Instead, he reiterates arguments and issues that were properly before the Magistrate Judge at the time his Recommendation issued. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, and Plaintiff's objection thereto. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that Judge Watanabe's Recommendation is correct and is not called into question by Plaintiff's objection.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 29), filed August 1, 2012, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's objection (Doc. # 30) is OVERRULED.
3. Pursuant to the Recommendation:

a. Plaintiff's Motion to File an Amended Pleading (Doc. # 18) is DENIED.
- and -
b. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 20) is GRANTED.

4. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of appeal.
5. This case is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge