Free Report and Recommendations - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01050-MSK-PAC

Document 32

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-cv-01050-MSK-PAC NICKY L. SMITH BEY, Plaintiff, v. CPT. SCOTT GIBSON, SGT. PAYNE, SGT. JOSEPH BARNHILL, LISA FITZGERALD, JESSICA MEKELBURG, and MICHAEL YONGER, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE _____________________________________________________________________ Patricia A. Coan, United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before the court on plaintiff' Motion Requesting Appropriate Sanction, s filed and referred to me on July 26, 2005. Plaintiff is appearing pro se, and filed the motion which seeks $1787.00 for " reasonable expenses incurred." Plaintiff asserts in her motion that she made a good faith effort to " obtain disclosure without court action on February 9 at the deposition,"and that defendant' nondisclosure is unjustified and the award of s expenses is just. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7, a motion " shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought." Further, the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Colorado, provide

Case 1:04-cv-01050-MSK-PAC

Document 32

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 2 of 3

at 7.1: " Excluding motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or 65, a motion involving a contested issue of law shall state under which rule or statute it is filed and be supported by a recitation of legal authority incorporated into the motion." The motion plaintiff filed fails to specify the legal grounds under which the relief in the form of monetary sanctions is sought, as required by the federal rule, and does not recite any legal authority entitling her to such relief, as required by the local rule. I am not at liberty to infer any factual grounds or legal bases which would entitle plaintiff to the relief she seeks. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that plaintiff' Motion for Appropriate Sanction be denied, for the s reasons stated above. Within ten days after being served with a copy of the proposed findings and recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendation with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The district court judge shall make a determination of those portions of the proposed findings or specified recommendation to which objection is made. The district court judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Failure to make timely objections to the magistrate judge' s recommendation may result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the district court based on the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge.

Dated this 1st day of August, 2005.

Case 1:04-cv-01050-MSK-PAC

Document 32

Filed 08/01/2005

Page 3 of 3

BY THE COURT: s/ Patricia A. Coan PATRICIA A. COAN United States Magistrate Judge