United States District Court, D. Colorado
PETER J. WIRS, Hon., Plaintiff,
UNITED WORLD WRESTLING Defendant.
ORDER ON PENDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND “EMERGENCY
William J. Martinez United States District Judge.
Peter J. Wirs (“Wirs”), proceeding pro
se, sues Defendant United World Wrestling
(“UWW”) for, among other things, violation of
U.S. antitrust laws. UWW is a Swiss organization that serves
as the worldwide governing body for amateur wrestling
(freestyle and Greco-Roman).
matter is before the Court on four Recommendations made by
United States Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. (ECF Nos.
17, 20, 29, 34.) These Recommendations are incorporated
herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). All of them deny the relief
Wirs requests in the underlying motions. Wirs filed timely
objections to the latter three Recommendations. (See
ECF Nos. 22, 32, 35.)
before the Court is Wirs's Emergency Motion for
Reconsideration of Motion to Set Down Settlement Conference
Denied By By [sic] Operation of Law (ECF No. 21),
which the Court never referred to Judge Varholak.
reasons explained below, the motions referred to Judge
Varholak are denied on their merits in part, and otherwise
denied as moot. The portions of Judge Varholak's
Recommendations regarding Wirs's moot requests for relief
are vacated, but the Recommendations are otherwise adopted.
As to the motion the Court did not refer, it is denied.
magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive
matter, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) requires
that the district judge “determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge's [recommendation] that has been
properly objected to.” In the absence of a timely and
specific objection, “the district court may review a
magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it
deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
72 Advisory Committee's Note (“When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record.”).
An objection to a recommendation is properly made if it is
both timely and specific. United States v. One Parcel of
Real Property Known as 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057,
1059 (10th Cir. 1996). An objection is sufficiently specific
if it “enables the district judge to focus attention on
those issues-factual and legal-that are at the heart of the
parties' dispute.” Id. (quoting
Thomas, 474 U.S. at 47). In conducting its review,
“[t]he district court judge may accept, reject, or
modify the recommendation; receive further evidence; or
return the matter to the magistrate judge with
Wirs is proceeding pro se, the Court must liberally
construe his pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520-21 (1972); Trackwell v. United States
Gov't, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). The
Court, however, cannot act as an advocate for Wirs, who must
still comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See Hall v. Bellmon, 935
F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
filed this action on July 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) His chief
complaint is that UWW eliminated from its “Veterans
World Championships” event all competitions for
wrestlers that are age 60 or older. (Id. ¶ 1.)
Wirs asserted that this choice violated, among other things,
section 2 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 13).
(Id. ¶¶ 37-44.) As noted previously, UWW
is a Swiss organization. Whether Wirs has properly served UWW
with process remains unresolved.
August 10, 2017 Recommendation
August 7, 2017, Wirs filed an “Omnibus Motion for
Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction,
Consolidation of Hearing with Trial on Merits, and for Summay
[sic] Judgment on Antitrust Liability”
(“August 7 Motion”). (ECF No. 10.) Wirs asserted
that he had some sort of “August 10, 2017 registration
deadline.” (Id. ¶ 5.) He requested
“a TRO to enlarge the registration deadline by fourteen
days . . . to allow the time for a hearing on the
merits.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
also described “pretrial settlement discussions via
email and telephone conference calls” with “Mr.
Nenad Lalovic, of Belgrade, Serbia, ” UWW's
president. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) Wirs stated that
he and Lalovic had discussed Wirs's “proffered
‘Proposed Consent Decree'” appointing
receivers for UWW that would then cause it to take legal
action to protect its “intellectual property rights
[as] against a U.S. commercial vaudeville producer
stigmatizing the Sport for damages currently estimated at
$970 million.” (Id. ¶¶
9-11.) Wirs noted, however, his belief that
Lalovic (“despite his authority under [the] UWW
Constitution . . . is unable to enter into the Proposed
Consent Decree without the UWW Bureau's [i.e.,
board of director's] approval.” (Id.
¶¶ 10, 13.) Wirs attributed this lack of
independence to UWW's “General Secretary, Michael
Dusson, of Dijon, France, ” whom Wirs alleges to be
“a ‘hardliner' [who] promotes male hegemony
in opposition to the progressives, such as Mr. Lalovic,
” and who “[e]xerts such full, complete, and
exclusive control over [UWW] as to render all other Bureau
Members a ‘disinterested majority' powerless to
correct Dusson's ult[r]a vires acts, such as
banning [Wirs] ¶ 2016 from competition.”
(Id. ¶ 14.)
Court referred this motion to Judge Varholak. (ECF No. 14.)
On August 10, 2017, Judge Varholak issued a Recommendation
(“August 10 Recommendation”) denying the motion
without prejudice because Wirs had failed “to identify
the nature of this deadline, the harm that purportedly would
befall [him] if it is not ...