Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Faircloth v. Timme

United States District Court, D. Colorado

March 25, 2014

JAMES FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN: RAE TIMME, et al., in their individual and official capacities, Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#65], [1] filed February 21, 2014; and (2) Petitioner's Objection to Magistrate's Order on February 21, 2014, and Petition for Reconsideration [#69], filed March 10, 2014. I overrule the objection, adopt the recommendation, and deny the apposite motion to amend the complaint.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, 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 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

As required by 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw.

The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff's objections are imponderous and without merit. The magistrate judge recommends denial of leave to amend the complaint because amendment would be futile insofar as the facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to state plausible claims for relief. I concur. See Perkins v. Kansas Department of Corrections, 165 F.3d 803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff well may be, as he suggests, unschooled in the law, but he is no doubt aware of the facts that underlie this lawsuit and the basis for his claims. The court presumes that plaintiff has set forth in his proposed amended complaint all those facts of which he is aware that he believes give rise to a legal cause of action against defendants. That such facts, in fact, are insufficient to make out viable claims is attributable not to plaintiff's lack of legal training, but to the lack of underlying merit of his claims. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110 ( pro se plaintiff still bears "the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based").[2]

Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#65], filed February 21, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the objections stated in Petitioner's Objection to Magistrate's Order on February 21, 2014, and Petition for Reconsideration [#69], filed March 10, 2014, are OVERRULED; and

3. That plaintiff's Petition for Leave To File Amended Complaint [#60], filed December 13, 2103, is DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.