IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02185-PAB-CBS

PHILLIP A. WOLF and

KATHLEEN C. WOLF,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF GILPIN COUNTY,

Defendant.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer filed on September 23, 2011 [Docket No. 14]. The

Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within

fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

Recommendation was served on September 23, 2011. No party has objected to the

Recommendation. 

In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s

recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d

1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“[i]t

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s

factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party

objects to those findings”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation

Case 1:11-cv-02185-PAB-CBS Document 16 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary 1

to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo

review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

2

to satisfy myself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed. R. 1

Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court finds that the

Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Therefore, the Court

will accept the Recommendation.

Furthermore, although it is difficult to discern what Mr. Wolf claims in the present

action, see Docket No. 7; Docket No. 14 at 2, there is reason to believe that it is

another in a line of cases initiated by Mr. Wolf against Gilpin County, Colorado or its

officials arising out of a single issue. See, e.g., Wolf v. Prtrock, et al., No. 04-cv-02677-

ZLW; Wolf v. Petrock, No. 08-cv-02749-PAB-KMT; Wolf v. County of Gilpin, et al., No.

10-cv-01456-PAB-KMT. Plaintiff unsuccessfully argued in a prior state court action that

“Gilpin County Court did not have authority to enter . . . judgments [against him] . . .

because the County does not have the authority to regulate [plaintiff’s] land, as it is

‘mineral land’ exempt from County regulation pursuant to federal law” and that “the

County’s regulation of the land is a violation of federal law and Colorado criminal

statutes.” Wolf v. Petrock, No. 08-cv-02749-PAB-KMT, 2009 WL 3418218, at *1-2 (D.

Colo. Oct. 19, 2009), aff’d on other grounds by Wolf v. Petrock, No. 09-1514, 2010 WL

2331171 (10th Cir. June 10, 2010). “After finding no relief in the Colorado courts, Mr.

Wolf turned to the federal court system.” Wolf, 2010 WL 2331171, at *1. In Civil Action

No. 08-cv-02749-PAB-KMT, plaintiff reasserted his claim that “he owns land upon which

he owns federal land patents and that Gilpin County and others are violating Colorado

Case 1:11-cv-02185-PAB-CBS Document 16 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

and federal law by regulating his lands.” Wolf, 2009 WL 3418218, at *2 (citing Docket

No. 12 at 2, ¶ 2.4 in No. 08-cv-02749). The Court entered judgment against Mr. Wolf in

that federal action. Mr. Wolf thereafter filed another federal action seeking largely the

same relief against the County of Gilpin and its county attorney, James Petrock. See

Wolf v. County of Gilpin, et al., No. 10-cv-01456-PAB-KMT. On December 8, 2010, the

Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in that case on res judicata grounds.

See Wolf v. County of Gilpin, No. 10-cv-01456-PAB-KMT, 2010 WL 5094043, at *2 (D.

Colo. Dec. 8, 2010). The Court also barred Mr. Wolf from filing any additional criminal

allegations in this Court and from filing any additional pro se actions against Mr. Petrock

without leave of the Court. See id. at *3. In light of the foregoing resolutions of his

claims, the present matter reveals an unwillingness on Mr. Wolf’s part to cease filing

actions against the County of Gilpin and its officials based upon the same issues

resolved in previous federal cases. 

“A district court has power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin litigants who

abuse the court system by harassing their opponents.” Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d

351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989) (collecting cases). Furthermore, “[f]ederal courts have the

inherent power to regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing carefully

tailored restrictions in appropriate circumstances.” Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070,

1077 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Sieverding v. Colo. Bar Ass'n., 469 F.3d 1340, 1343 (10th

Cir. 2006)); see Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Co., 150 F.3d 1227, 1232 (10th Cir.

1998); Tripati, 878 F.2d at 352. The Court warns Mr. Wolf that continued persistence in

Case 1:11-cv-02185-PAB-CBS Document 16 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

asserting claims against the County of Gilpin and its officials that have been finally

resolved by the Court may result in the imposition of additional filing restrictions. 

For the foregoing reasons, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket

No. 14] is ACCEPTED and this case is dismissed in its entirety.

DATED October 19, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02185-PAB-CBS Document 16 Filed 10/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4