Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Serna v. Webster

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

June 2, 2017

EMMA SERNA d/b/a SERNA & ASSOCIATES CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MARGETTE WEBSTER; DAVID WEBSTER; STATE OF NEW MEXICO, U.S. Judicial Court Division; CLAYTON CROWLEY; ALEX CHISHOLM; CARL BUTKUS; CINDY MOLINA; ALAN MALOTT; BEATRICE BRICKHOUSE; BOBBY JO WALKER; JAMES O'NEAL; ROBERT BOB SIMON; ESTATE OF PAUL F. BECHT; CARL A. CALVERT; JOEY MOYA; AMY MAYER; GARCIA MADELIENE; ARTHUR PEPIN; MONICA ZAMORA; CHERYL ORTEGA; JOHN DOE #1; PAT MCMURRAY; MARTHA MUTILLO; SALLY GALANTER; NEW MEXICO CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES DIVISION; ROBERT “MIKE” UNTHANK; MARTIN ROMERO; AMANDA ROYBAL; NAN NASH and JOHN WELLS, Defendants.

          Emma Serna d/b/a Serna & Associates Construction Co., LLC Albuquerque, New Mexico Plaintiff pro se

          Margette Webster Albuquerque, New Mexico Defendant pro se

          David Webster Albuquerque, New Mexico Defendant pro se

          Hector Balderas Attorney General for the State of New Mexico Ari Biernoff Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Santa Fe, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendants State of New Mexico, Carl Butkus, Cindy Molina, Alan Malott, Beatrice Brickhouse, Bobby Jo Walker, James O'Neal, Joey Moya, Amy Mayer, Garcia Madeliene, Arthur Pepin, Monica Zamora, Cheryl Ortega, and Nan Nash

          William David Grieg The Law Office of William D. Grieg, LLC Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Clayton Crowley

          Alex Chisolm Defendant pro se

          Terry R. Guebert Robert Gentile Guebert Bruckner, PC Albuquerque, New Mexico and Seth Sparks Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Robert Bob Simon

          Estate of Paul F. Becht Albuquerque, New Mexico Defendant pro se

          John P. Burton Charles R. Hughson Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb Albuquerque, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendant Carl A. Calvert

          Kenneth C. Downes Kenneth C. Downes & Associates, PC Corrales, New Mexico Attorneys for Defendants Martha Murillo, Sally Galanter, New Mexico Construction Industries Division, Robert Unthank, Martin Romero, and Amanda Roybal

          John Wells Defendant pro se

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, filed April 12, 2017 (Doc. 103)(“PFRD”); and (ii) the Plaintiff's Entry of Objection of Disposition of Serna & Associates Construction Co., LLC and Allow Attorney as De Novo, filed April 17, 2017 (Doc. 109)(“Objections”). Because the Court agrees with the conclusion of the Honorable William P. Lynch, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of New Mexico, the Court will adopt the PFRD, dismiss without prejudice all claims that Serna & Associates Construction Co., LLC (“Serna & Associates”) purportedly brings, and remove Serna & Associates from this case.

         LAW REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

         District courts may refer dispositive motions to a Magistrate Judge for a recommended disposition. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1)(“A magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings when assigned, without parties' consent, to hear a pretrial matter dispositive of a claim or defense . . . .”). Rule 72(b)(2) governs objections: “Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Finally, when resolving objections to a Magistrate Judge's proposal, “the district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 636 provides:

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.