-KMT Hamilton v. Emerald Isle Lending Company et al, No. 1:2010cv02713 - Document 76 (D. Colo. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 65 filed 4/6/2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED. The objections stated in Plaintiffs Response and Objections to the Magistrate Judges Proposed Findings and Recommendations 74 filed 5/2/2011, are OVERRULED. Defendants Motion To Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment 23 filed 1/7/2011, is GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to close this case administratively, subject to reopening for good cause shown at the conclusion of the parallel state court proceeding. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 5/23/2011.(sah, )

Download PDF

-KMT Hamilton v. Emerald Isle Lending Company et al Doc. 76 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 10-cv-02713-REB-KMT DAVID L. HAMILTON, an individual, Plaintiff, v. EMERALD ISLE LENDING COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, GGBC INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, STEPHEN P. GALLAGHER, individually, HOLLY A. COOK, individually, DAVID J. GOLDBERG, individually, MICHAEL J. BUSHELL, individually, and SCOTT L. CROSBIE, individually, Defendants. 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 [#65]1 filed April 6, 2011; and (2) Plaintiff’s Response and Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations [#74] filed May 2, 2011. I overrule the objections, adopt the recommendation, and grant in part Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [#23] filed January 7, 2011, consistent with the following findings, conclusions, and orders. 1 “[#65]” 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. Dockets.Justia.com 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. Moreover, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)). The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s objections are imponderous and without merit. 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 [#65] filed April 6, 2011, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Response and Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations [#74] filed May 2, 2011, are OVERRULED; 3. That Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment [#23] filed January 7, 2011, is GRANTED IN PART as follows; a. With respect to plaintiff’s First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief 2 against defendants, Emerald Isle Lending Company, GGBC Investment Properties, LLC, and Stephen P. Gallagher, on the basis of the doctrine articulated in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); b. With respect to plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief against defendants, Holly A. Cook, David J. Goldberg, Michael J. Bushnell, and Scott L. Crosbie; c. With respect to plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief against defendant Emerald Isle Lending Company; 4. That in all other respects, defendants’ motion is DENIED; 5. That plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief against defendants, Holly A. Cook, individually, David J. Goldberg, individually, Michael J. Bushnell, individually, and Scott L. Crosbie, individually, as well as plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief against defendant, Emerald Isle Lending Company, a Colorado corporation, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 6. That at the time judgment enters, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of defendants, Holly A. Cook, individually, David J. Goldberg, individually, Michael J. Bushnell, individually, and Scott L. Crosbie, individually, against plaintiff, David L. Hamilton, on plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief; provided, that the judgment as to this claim as against these defendants SHALL BE WITH PREJUDICE; 7. That at the time judgment enters, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of defendant, Emerald Isle Lending Company, a Colorado corporation, against plaintiff, 3 David L. Hamilton, on plaintiff’s Fourth and Fifth Claims for Relief; provided, that the judgment as to these claims SHALL BE WITH PREJUDICE; 8. That defendants, Holly A. Cook, individually, David J. Goldberg, individually, Michael J. Bushnell, individually, and Scott L. Crosbie, individually, are DROPPED as named parties to this action, and the case caption AMENDED accordingly; 9. That the court DEFERS further consideration of plaintiff’s First, Second, and Third Claims for Relief on the basis of the Colorado River doctrine until the parallel Colorado state court case is concluded; and 10. That pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.2, the clerk of the court is DIRECTED to close this case administratively, subject to reopening for good cause shown at the conclusion of the parallel state court proceeding. Dated May 23, 2011, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.