United States District Court, D. Colorado
A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on plaintiff's Petition for
Leave, Seeking an Order and Directives Granting Objections in
Favor of Plaintiff's Pro Se Litigation [Docket No. 57]
and Petition for Reconsideration, on the Alternative
Petition, Seeking Leave for Order Reinstating the Claim
[Docket No. 58].
is currently incarcerated at the U.S. Penitentiary in
Florence, Colorado. Docket No. 1. On December 14, 2017,
plaintiff filed this lawsuit, alleging that defendant
Sattinder Rattan, who was plaintiff's medical caretaker,
was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's medical
needs. Id. On February 13, 2019, Magistrate Judge
Kristen L. Mix recommended that the Court grant both the
motion to dismiss, Docket No. 19, and the motion for summary
judgment, Docket No. 20, and dismiss both of plaintiff's
claims without prejudice. Docket Nos. 51, 52. No. party filed
an objection to either recommendation. On March 5, 2019, the
Court accepted both recommendations and dismissed both claims
without prejudice. Docket Nos. 54, 55. On March 8, 2019,
plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge's
recommendations. Docket No. 57. The objections are dated
March 5, 2019. Id. On March 22, 2019, plaintiff
filed a “petition for reconsideration, ”
requesting that the Court reinstate his claim. Docket No. 58.
Court construes the papers filed by Mr. Morales liberally
because he is not represented by an attorney. See Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v.
Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However,
the Court should not be an advocate for a pro se
litigant, who must still “follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.” See Kay v.
Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007).
Court construes Docket No. 57 as plaintiff's objections
to the magistrate judge's recommendations. When a
magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive
matter, the Court must “determine de novo any part of
the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly
objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). An objection is
“proper” 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 timely if it is filed within fourteen days of
service of the recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). If
service is by mail, the time to file objections is extended
an additional three days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 1983 Advisory
Committee Note (applying what is now Rule 6(d)). Both
recommendations provided notice to plaintiff that objections
to the recommendations were due fourteen days after service
and that failure to timely object would waive de
novo review by the Court. Docket No. 51 at 11-12; Docket
No. 52 at 12; cf. Theede v. U.S. Dep't of Labor,
172 F.3d 1262, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 1999) (waiver of appellate
review applies to pro se litigants if properly
informed of the consequences of failure to object). Thus,
plaintiff's objections were due on March 4, 2019.
Plaintiff's objections were signed on March 5, 2019; the
envelope bears an inked stamp from the prison dated March 6,
2019, apparently reflecting the date the prison received it
into their mail system. Docket No. 57 at 6-7. Plaintiff's
objections, even considered as of the date signed rather than
the date placed in the prison mail system, were not timely.
As plaintiff failed to properly object to the magistrate
judge's recommendations, and the Court has already ruled
on the recommendations, the Court will deny Docket No. 57 as
Court construes Docket No. 58 as a motion to alter or amend
the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “A motion
to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28
days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e). “Grounds warranting a motion to alter or amend
the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) include (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Alpenglow
Botanicals, LLC v. United States, 894 F.3d 1187, 1203
(10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Servants of the Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff
argues that his objections were not heard before the case was
closed, rendering the Court's closure of the case
premature. See Docket No. 58. However, as discussed
above, plaintiff's objections were not addressed because
they were untimely. Therefore, it was not clear error for the
Court to accept the magistrate judge's recommendations
before plaintiff's objections were filed. Plaintiff's
motion does not identify any intervening change in the
controlling law or any evidence previously unavailable that
would cause the Court to reconsider its ruling. And plaintiff
offers no facts or argument from which the Court could
conclude that denying his motion would be “manifest
injustice.” Because plaintiff fails to show that
altering the judgment is warranted, the Court will deny
Docket No. 58.
that plaintiff's Petition for Leave, Seeking an Order and
Directives Granting Objections in Favor of Plaintiff's
Pro Se Litigation [Docket No. 57] is DENIED AS
MOOT. It is further
that plaintiff's Petition for Reconsideration, on the
Alternative Petition, Seeking Leave for Order Reinstating the
Claim [Docket No. 58] is DENIED.
 The factual and procedural background
of this case is set out in greater detail in the magistrate