1

 “[#54]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02192-REB-CBS

TRENTON H. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

BETHANY SALZMAN, individually and in her official capacity, and

GARY SCHWARTZ, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

This matter is before me on the following:(1) Defendants Salzman and

Schwartz’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint

(ECF No. 14) [#54]1

 filed December 13, 2013; and (2) the corresponding

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#64] filed May 28, 2014. I

approve and adopt the recommendation, grant the motion for summary judgment, and

dismiss this case.

The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings and other

filings 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 (2007); Andrews v.

Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110

Case 1:11-cv-02192-REB-CBS Document 65 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

 This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.

2

(10th Cir. 1991). 

No objections to the recommendations were filed. Thus, I review the

recommendations only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &

Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2

 Finding no error, much

less plain error, in the recommendation of the magistrate judge, I find and conclude that

the recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court.

Trenton H. Parker is the sole remaining plaintiff in this case. Still pending in this

case are a Fourth Amendment claim against defendants, Bethany Salzman and Gary

Schwartz, and a state law claim for outrageous conduct against Ms. Salzman. As

detailed by the magistrate judge, both claims are based on the entry of the defendants

onto the real property in Weld County, Colorado. This entry happened on September 29,

2009, and was related to the enforcement of county land use regulations. Mr. Parker

claims the defendants searched the property in violation of his rights under the Fourth

Amendment. Both defendants were acting as employees of Weld County when the entry

happened.

As discussed by the magistrate judge, viewing the evidence in the record in the

light most favorable to Mr. Parker, no reasonable fact finder could find that the

defendants violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Mr. Parker. On this basis, the

defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim asserted

against them in their official capacities. Absent some demonstration that the defendants

violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Mr. Parker, the defendants are entitled to

qualified immunity as to the Fourth Amendment claim asserted against them in their

Case 1:11-cv-02192-REB-CBS Document 65 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

individual capacities. See, e.g., Wilder v. Turner, 490 F.3d 810, 813 (10th Cir. 2007). 

On these bases, the magistrate judge recommends correctly that the defendants are

entitled to summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim of Mr. Parker.

The outrageous conduct claim asserted by Mr. Parker against Bethany Salzman

is based on the September 29, 2009, entry onto the Weld County property. Correctly,

the magistrate judge concludes that Ms. Salzman is entitled to summary judgment on

this claim. When addressing an outrageous conduct claim, 

(a)s a threshold matter, the trial court must determine whether the proof of

outrageousness is sufficient as a matter of law. The claim should be

submitted to the jury only if reasonable persons could differ on whether the

defendant's conduct was sufficiently outrageous. Coors Brewing Co. v.

Floyd, 978 P.2d 663, 665 (Colo.1999).

Archer v. Farmer Bros. Co., 70 P.3d 495, 499 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002), aff'd, 90 P.3d 228

(Colo. 2004). “Where it is clear to the court that the conduct complained of cannot be

considered as rising to the egregious standard required, a claim for outrageous conduct

is properly dismissed.” Shackelford v. Courtesy Ford, Inc., 96 F.Supp.2d 1140, 1146

(D.Colo. 2000). The September 29, 2009, entry onto the Weld County property

described in the complaint and reflected in the evidence in the record does not rise to the

egregious standard required. On this basis, Ms. Salzman is entitled to summary

judgment. In addition, for the reasons cited by the magistrate judge, Ms. Salzman is

entitled to summary judgment on this claim under the Colorado Governmental Immunity

Act, §§24-10-101 - 24-10-120, C.R.S.

At a Preliminary Scheduling Conference on October 31, 2012, former plaintiff,

Marjorie Kessling, asked that she be dismissed from this case. Order and

Recommendation [#45], p. 2 n. 1. Neither Mr. Parker nor any of the defendants objected

to her request. In essence, Ms. Kessling voluntarily sought dismissal of her claims, and,

Case 1:11-cv-02192-REB-CBS Document 65 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

ultimately, her claims were dismissed. Order [#48]. Therefore, I do not address the

claims of Ms. Kessling when entering judgment in this case.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#64] filed

May 28, 2014, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That Defendants Salzman and Schwartz’ Motion for Summary Judgment

on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) [#54] filed December 13, 2013,

is GRANTED;

3. That consistent with this order and with the Order Concerning

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [#26] filed August 30, 2012,

JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Bruce T. Barker, Stephanie L.

Arries, Bethany Salzman, Gary Schwartz, Nick Maegher, John Cook, and The Weld

County Commissioners, against the plaintiff, Trenton H. Parker, on each of the claims

asserted in the amended complaint [#14] filed December 9, 2011;

4. That the defendants are AWARDED their costs to be taxed by the clerk of the

court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1; and

5. That this case is CLOSED.

Dated July 17, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02192-REB-CBS Document 65 Filed 07/17/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4