Free Order - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01382-ZLW-KLM

Document 101

Filed 08/06/2008

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Zita L. Weinshienk Civil Action No. 04-cv-01382-ZLW-KLM KENNETH E. PEPER, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary in his official capacity; FOREST SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and DALE BOSWORTH, as Chief in his official capacity, Defendants.

ORDER

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion To Clarify Issues For Adjudication And/Or Plaintiff's Motion To Amend Complaint To Include Claim For Prescriptive Rights Under Colorado Statutory Law (Doc. No. 85; May 15, 2008) (Motion To Clarify), Plaintiff's Motion For A De Novo Non-Jury Trial On All Issues Pending In The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 86; May 16, 2008), and Plaintiff's Motion To Supplement The Record With Affidavits, Deposition, And Interrogatory Answers Of The Defendants (Doc. No. 89; May 27, 2008). Pursuant to this Court's orders dated September 3, 2004 (Doc. No. 5) and August 3, 2007 (Doc. No. 49), all "discovery and other non-dispositive motions" have been referred to Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix.1

1

See D.C.COLO.LCivR 72.1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Case 1:04-cv-01382-ZLW-KLM

Document 101

Filed 08/06/2008

Page 2 of 3

On July 3, 2008, Magistrate Judge Mix entered an order granting the Motion To Clarify in part and denying all other requests.2 Plaintiff timely filed objections on July 9, 2008.3 Plaintiff's motions have been liberally construed because he is pro se.4 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections, Defendants' response, the Magistrate Judge's order, and the original motions, responses, and replies. The Court finds the order is neither "clearly erroneous [nor] contrary to law."5 Rather, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's order is clear, well reasoned, and correct. This Court joins the Magistrate Judge in stressing that the APA claim is the sole remaining claim in the case, and further argument regarding either a quiet title action or existence of an easement will not be permitted. These matters have been resolved and are no longer the subject of this case. Accordingly, it is

2

Order (Doc. No. 95).

Doc. No. 96. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff's objections on July 18, 2008 (Doc. No. 98) and Plaintiff filed a reply on July 25, 2008 (Doc. No. 100). Neither a response nor a reply is permitted by the rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, in the interests of justice, the Court reviewed both the response and reply before entering this Order.
4

3

See Trackwell v. United States, 472 F.3d 1242, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). 2

5

Case 1:04-cv-01382-ZLW-KLM

Document 101

Filed 08/06/2008

Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objections To The Order Entered By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix Dated July 3, 2008 (Doc. No. 96; July 9, 2008) are overruled. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 6th day of August , 2008. BY THE COURT:

________________________________ ZITA L. WEINSHIENK, Senior Judge United States District Court

3