HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-cv-2306-RM-KLM - Perry v. State of Colorado, et al - 068 - City Response Mot Withdraw Mag ConsentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 1:21-CV-02306-RM-KLM
ROBERT LAWRENCE PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF COLORADO,
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS,
CSU BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR CSU,
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY and
STEVEN VASCONSELLOS, Judicial Administrator;
Defendant.
DEFENDANT THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW MAGISTRATE CONSENT
Mark S. Ratner, Esq. and Katherine N. Hoffman, Esq., of the law firm Hall & Evans, LLC,
on behalf of Defendant, The City of Fort Collins (“City”), submit the following as their Response
to Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel:
I. ARGUMENT
Plaintiff’s argues the assignment of the Magistrate Judge in this matter should be
withdrawn, as there is purportedly no jurisdiction to “hear and determine” the pending Motions to
Dismiss. Plaintiff’s argument is misplaced and should be denied.
The assignment to the Magistrate Judge was made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) & (b)
(See ECF 9). In particular, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) provides jurisdiction for a magistrate to make
findings and recommendations on dispositive matters, even without the parties’ consent. Fed. R.
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 68 Filed 08/15/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2
Civ. P. 72(b)(1). Here, the Motions to Dismiss were referred to the Magistrate, but no ruling has
yet been made (See ECF 52 & 54). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion is moot and premature.
In addition, it is anticipated the Magistrate will only issue findings and recommendations,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and ECF 9, 52 & 54, and as such Plaintiff will still not have a
basis for relief. Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied on this basis as well.
Plaintiff also argues he, once again, intends on filing another amended Complaint. This
time, the basis for the relief is apparently confirmation of an arbitration award. However,
notwithstanding the fact Plaintiff has not submitted any such proposed pleading, no such
arbitration award exists against the City of Fort Collins, and therefore Plaintiff’s requested relief
is moot on this basis as well.
II. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Defendant, The City of Fort Collins, respectfully requests the Court deny
Plaintiff’s Motion and for entry of any other relief deemed just.
Respectfully submitted this 15th day of August 2022.
s/Mark S. Ratner
Katherine N. Hoffman, Esq.
Mark S. Ratner, Esq.
Hall & Evans, L.L.C.
1001 17th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-628-3300
Fax: 303-628-3368
ratnerm@hallevans.com
hoffmank@hallevans.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 68 Filed 08/15/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3
`
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF)
I hereby certify that on the 15th day of August 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
was filed with the Court via CM/ECF and served on all parties of record, as well as the below-
listed party by email:
Robert Lawrence Perry
fort_scout@yahoo.com
Pro se Plaintiff
Allison R. Ailer, #33008
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Attorneys for The State of Colorado;
Board of Governors of the CSU System,
acting and on behalf of CSU; Colorado State University;
and Steven Vasconcellos
Skip Spear, #32061
Ralph L. Carr Colorado Judicial Center
1300 Broadway, 10th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
Attorneys for The State of Colorado;
Board of Governors of the CSU System,
acting and on behalf of CSU; and Colorado State University
s/Sarah M. Stefanick
Case 1:21-cv-02306-RM-KLM Document 68 Filed 08/15/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3