United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 22, 2019
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the October 22, 2019
Recommendation (Doc. # 109) of United State Magistrate Judge
S. Kato Crews, wherein he recommends that this Court dismiss
this case with prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to
prosecute and comply with Court orders. On November 4, 2019,
Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. #
112.) For the following reasons, the Court adopts and affirms
magistrate judge's Recommendation provides an extensive
recitation of the factual and procedural background of this
case. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). Accordingly, the Court will reiterate the factual
background only to the extent necessary to address
January 7, 2019, this Court entered an Order denying
Plaintiff's Motion for an Ex Parte Temporary
Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. # 71.)
Plaintiff appealed that decision. (Doc. # 73.) Despite the
fact that Plaintiff appealed this Court's Order denying
preliminary injunctive relief, this Court retained
jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. Free
Speech v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 720 F.3d 788, 791
(10th Cir. 2013).
on a subsequent Recommendation that Magistrate Judge Crews
issued, this Court granted in part Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. Thus, the Court dismissed most-but not all-of
Plaintiff's claims in her Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 94.)
The Court did not dismiss one claim, which remains pending.
On September 17, 2019, however, Plaintiff filed a second
notice of appeal regarding this Court's order granting in
part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. # 99.) The
Court certified that appeal as frivolous because it did not
pertain to a final order or judgment. (Doc. # 103.)
litigation process began to break down in this case after
Magistrate Judge Crews issued his Recommendation regarding
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
with her Objection to that Recommendation, Plaintiff has
maintained that this Court lacks jurisdiction in this case
due to her appeal of the Court's decision regarding her
Motion seeking preliminary injunctive relief. See
(Doc. # 93) (August 14 Objection). Plaintiff reasserted the
same argument in a Motion for Reconsideration and multiple
subsequent filings. See (Doc. # 96; Doc. # 104 at 3;
Doc. # 106 at 3-7; Doc. # 110 at 1; Doc. # 111 at 1-3). Most
recently, in her Objection to the instant Recommendation
(Doc. # 112 at 2-27), Plaintiff
repeated-verbatim in a paragraph that is
copied and pasted throughout her filing-her position that
this Court lacks jurisdiction twenty-five
this Court and Magistrate Judge Crews have gone to great
lengths to explain to Plaintiff that her position is
incorrect. In fact, this Court has described why it retains
jurisdiction in three separate Orders:
• (Doc. # 94 at 4) (quoting Magistrate Judge Crews'
explanation of why the district court retains jurisdiction
after a litigant appeals an order regarding preliminary
• (Doc. # 103 at 3-5) (reiterating that the district
court may consider the merits of a case after a litigant
appeals a preliminary injunction order and explaining that an
appeal is frivolous if it pertains to a non-final judgment);
• (Doc. # 107 at 1-3) (same).
however, Plaintiff appears unwilling to accept any
interpretation of the law other than her own.
on her fervent-albeit mistaken-belief that this Court lacks
jurisdiction, Plaintiff has ceased to meaningfully engage in
the litigation process. On October 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge
Crews intended to hold a status conference in this case.
See (Doc. # 102). However, Plaintiff failed to
appear. Subsequently, the magistrate judge issued a Minute
Order cautioning Plaintiff that her ...