Sieverding v. Colorado Bar Assoc

126 F. App'x 457

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2005
• Docket: 04-1108, 04-1143, 04-1152
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

TERRENCE L. O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiffs-appellants, formerly residents of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, appeal from the dismissal of their suit, which purported to state claims against numerous defendants who allegedly violated appellants’ legal rights with regard to zoning decisions that affected appellants and their former neighbors. Although appellants filed three separate appeals, all of them challenge the same final judgment entered by the district court on March 19, 2004.

We have reviewed the voluminous district court record. In our view, the magistrate judge performed a Herculean feat in his sixty-one page recommendation filed on October 14, 2003. He made as much sense as possible of appellants’ numerous complaints and amended complaints, and cogently explained: (1) why they had no valid claim and their suit should be dismissed with prejudice; (2) why they should be required to pay defendants’ costs and fees since January 30, 2003; and (3) why they should be enjoined from commencing further litigation regarding these events without first obtaining counsel. The district court reviewed the record de novo, and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full.

Appellants’ “arguments” on appeal are incomprehensible. Based on our review of the district court record, we AFFIRM, as we find no fault with the magistrate judge’s analysis, as adopted by the district court. We observe that appellants did not assert error with the imposition of filing restrictions and, therefore, this court will enforce those restrictions.

Appellees’ motion to consolidate the appeals is granted. Appellants’ motion to file a substitute reply brief is denied. Appellants’ other outstanding motions — including appellants’ motion filed on April 13, 2005, asking this court to invite the Department of Justice to investigate the magistrate judge, the district court, and defense counsel — are denied as moot or as frivolous and meritless.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.