Ross v. Colorado Department of Transportation
Filing
65
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#43 ], is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court. The objections stated in plaintiff's Objections to Recommendation [#46 ] are OVERRULED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint [#27 ] is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/14/2013. (klyon, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-02603-REB-KMT
DAVID C. ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge [#43],1 filed August 22, 2012; and (2) plaintiff’s Objections to
Recommendation [#46], filed September 5, 2012. I overrule the objections and
approve and adopt the recommendation.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the
recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the
recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. The recommendation is detailed
and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s objections are imponderous and without
merit.
1
“[#43]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
Even assuming arguendo that the good cause standards of Rule 16(b) are
inapplicable such that the arguably more lenient standards of Rule 15(a) alone govern
the determination, I concur with the magistrate judge that plaintiff’s delay in bringing this
motion would engender undue prejudice to defendant were leave to amend granted. As
the magistrate judge noted, the doctrine of Ex Parte Young, under which plaintiff seeks
to avoid CDOT’s Eleventh Amendment immunity by adding individual defendants, has
been part of the legal landscape for nearly a century. Patently, the delay in bringing the
motion was attributable to nothing more than plaintiff’s own failure adequately to
research the law and timely to determine what claims to pursue. Even the liberal
standards of Rule 15(a) would be offended were such inexplicable lapses excusable.
Moreover, although the recommendation was issued with an eye toward the
original trial date, which has since been continued, trial is now scheduled for April 29,
2013, almost precisely the same number of days hence as the magistrate judge
considered at the time she issued her recommendation. In addition, by order to enter
later today, I will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining claims on
Eleventh Amendment grounds. As the magistrate judge portended, “[s]hould the
plaintiff not prevail [on the Eleventh Amendment issue], the Defendant’s prejudice
becomes even more acute should the court allow the late amendment, which, no doubt,
would necessitate continuance of the trial date.” (Recommendation at 14-15.) Indeed,
because defendant structured its entire discovery strategy around its contention that the
Eleventh Amendment would bar plaintiff’s section 1983 and state law claims entirely,
amendment at this late juncture would require the parties to essentially begin this case
2
anew. The prejudice such a result would engender is obvious.
Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited,
and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the
magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#43], filed
August 22, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the objections stated in plaintiff’s Objections to Recommendation
[#46], filed September 5, 2012, are OVERRULED; and
3. That plaintiff’s Motion for Leave To Amend Complaint [#27], filed July 31,
2012, is DENIED.
Dated March 14, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
