Free Order on Report and Recommendations - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 74

Filed 07/19/2005

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO LEWIS T. BABCOCK, CHIEF JUDGE Civil Case No. 04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW LAURENCE RENE3 GOODMAN, Petitioner, v. SUSAN MEREDITH, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________

On February 22, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) and (b), the Magistrate Judge entered his order recommending that the Motion to Dismiss for Mootness by the United States, considered as a Motion for Summary Judgment, filed August 4, 2004, be granted and the action dismissed. The Magistrate Judge further ordered that the Motion of the United States to Alter/Amend Caption and Certificate of Compliance with D.C.COLO.L.Civ.R 7.1 filed on February 8, 2005 is granted. The recommendation was docketed on February 23, 2005. The Petitioner filed timely written objections to the recommendation and order. In addition, Petitioner filed a " Motion for Recusal or in the Alternative a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing"on March 3, 2005 as to the assigned Magistrate Judge. On May 5, 2005, the Magistrate Judge entered his order regarding Petitioner' s Motion for Recusal or in the Alternative a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing denying that motion. Petitioner filed timely objections to the order denying recusal on May 16, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-01162-LTB-MJW

Document 74

Filed 07/19/2005

Page 2 of 2

I have reviewed the recommendation to dismiss de novo in light of the file and record in this case. I have reviewed the order granting the motion of the United States to amend caption and the order denying recusal upon the Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) standard of clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Upon de novo review, I conclude that the recommendation to dismiss is correct. Neither the order amending caption nor the order denying recusal are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of the United States of America to Dismiss for Mootness, considered as a Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on August 4, 2004, is GRANTED and the above action is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the orders granting amendment of the caption and denial of recusal are AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge DATED: July 19, 2005