1

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

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management 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 Case No. 11-cv-02421-REB-MJW

ALEMAYEHU GETACHEW,

Plaintiff,

v.

7-ELEVEN, INC.,

Defendant.

ORDER RE: RECOMMENDATIONS OF 

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Blackburn, J.

The matters before me are the recommendations contained in the magistrate

judge’s Order on Plaintiff’s Motions Amending His Complaint (Docket Nos. 40 and

41) and Recommendations on Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss

(Docket No. 10) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Against Defendant 7-Eleven

(Docket No. 23) [#52]1

 filed April 27, 2012. I adopt the recommendation regarding

plaintiff’s motion for judgment against defendant, but respectfully reject the

recommendation to deny defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot in light of more recent

developments in the case. 

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, and appropriately, the magistrate

judge construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, as have I. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 56 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d

1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)

(citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652

(1972)). However, a litigant’s pro se status does not excuse him from complying in all

particulars with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this District, and

of course, all duly issued orders of the court. Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277

(10th Cir. 1994); Carrillo v. Castle, Stawiarki, LLC, 2012 WL 12809 at*2 (D. Colo. Jan.

4, 2012). Nevertheless, and despite plaintiff’s pro se status, where no objections have

been filed to the recommendation, as here, I review it only for plain error. See MoralesFernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir.

2005).

The magistrate judge recommends that Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To

Dismiss and Memorandum in Support [#10] filed October 18, 2011, be denied as

moot in light of his contemporaneous order granting plaintiff’s motions to amend his

complaint to add parties and a request for a jury trial. Plaintiff was ordered to file his

amended complaint on or before May 11, 2012. When no such amended pleading was

filed by the deadline, the magistrate judge issued an Order To Show Cause [#54] filed

May 22, 2012, directing plaintiff to show why the case should not be dismissed for

failure to comply with the court’s directive. Plaintiff filed an untimely response to the

show cause order, indicating that “[a]t this time [he] is not interested to amend.” 

(Plaintiff’s Answer to “Order To Show” Filed on May 22, 2012 [#55], filed June 4,

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 56 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
2

 The magistrate judge has not yet had opportunity to resolve the issues implicated by the

plaintiff’s answer to the show cause order.

3

2012.)2

Given plaintiff’s obvious change of heart concerning his desire to amend his

complaint, the reasons underlying the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny

defendant’s motion to dismiss without prejudice have evanesced. I therefore will reject

that recommendation and re-refer the motion to the magistrate judge for further

recommendation. However, finding no plain error in the magistrate judge’s

recommended disposition of plaintiff’s motion for judgment, I find and conclude that the

recommendation as to that motion should be approved and adopted. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the recommendations contained in the magistrate judge’s Order on

Plaintiff’s Motions Amending His Complaint (Docket Nos. 40 and 41) and

Recommendations on Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss (Docket No.

10) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Against Defendant 7-Eleven (Docket No.

23) [#52] filed April 27, 2012, are REJECTED IN PART and APPROVED AND

ADOPTED IN PART as follows:

a. That the recommendation to deny Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion

To Dismiss and Memorandum in Support [#10], filed October 18, 2011,

is respectfully REJECTED; and

b. that the recommendation to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment

Against Defendant 7-Eleven Inc. On Plaintiff’s Pleading Filed on 

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 56 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

September 14, 2011 [#23], filed November 14, 2011, is APPROVED AND

ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment Against Defendant 7-Eleven Inc. On

Plaintiff’s Pleading Filed on September 14, 2011 [#23], filed November 14, 2011, is

DENIED; and

3. That Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum in

Support [#10], filed October 18, 2011, is RE-REFERRED to the magistrate judge for

further recommendation.

Dated June 8, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 56 Filed 06/08/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4