Macgowan v. Town of Castle Rock

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 21-cv-01246-RM-KMT

MICHAEL L. MACGOWAN, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, JASON GRAY, Mayor, and TARA VARGISH, Director,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Objection to Interim Orders (ECF No. 37), seeking review of a nondispositive Order by United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (ECF No. 36). The Objection is overruled for the reasons below. I. LEGAL STANDARD This Court can modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Hutchinson v. Pfeil, 105 F.2d 562, 566 (10th Cir. 1997). The Court must have “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quotation omitted). II. BACKGROUND Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit because Defendant Town of Castle Rock denied his request to build an outdoor free speech structure called a “Combolisk.” A previous lawsuit seeking similar relief was unsuccessful. See MacGowan v. Town of Castle Rock, No. 19-cv-01831-MEH, 2020 WL 127978 (D. Colo. Jan. 1, 2020). Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, on preclusion and other grounds, has been referred to the magistrate judge for a recommendation. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff now objects to the magistrate judge’s Order denying his “Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Move to Strike/Motion for Default Judgment” (ECF No. 33), which declined Plaintiffs requests to strike Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to confer, to enter default judgment against Defendants, and to appoint a pro bono attorney to represent him. Wl. ANALYSIS Plaintiff's Objection does not meaningfully address the bases for the magistrate judge’s Order. Contrary to Plaintiff's apparent understanding, the standard advisement to the parties at the end of the Order does not demonstrate “bias” on the part of the magistrate judge or deny Plaintiff equal protection under the law. The Court discerns no basis for finding the magistrate judge’s Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law, and the Objection falls well short of leaving the Court with a firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See Ocelot Oil Corp., 847 F.2d at 1464. IV. CONCLUSION Therefore, the Court OVERRULES the Objection (ECF No. 37). DATED this 21st day of December, 2021. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge