Civil Action No. 19-cv-00752-LTB-GPG
Matthew Hale, J.D
Plaintiff
V.
Rudy Marques, et,al.
Defendant's
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS IN PART (Doc 8.)
Claims, 2,13 and 19 these claims have nothing whatever to do with Creativity on their face and thus cannot conceivably fall under the present ban on all Creativity correspondence which Hale is appealing to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, even if it turns out later that the court denies cert. or grants cert. and rules against Hale on merits, claims, 2, 13 and 19 cannot lawfully be dismissed on issue preclusion grounds as the Magistrate opined (Doc 8 at 7-8)
These involve issues that have not been adjudicated at all. Why the Magistrate assumes that everything Hale writes is "Creativity" Hale does not know but he is incorrect. In any case as Hale has already stated in previously tendered objections, the matter of Creativity has yet to be finally decided.
Claim 22. In addition to what Hale has already tendered, Hale objects to the Magistrate\s of dismissal (I.D at 8-10) on the same grounds as the other claims namely, that Hale V. Federal Bureau of Prisons is not yet final. Whatever statements the tenth circuit has made about Creativity (and Hale) may be reversed by the supreme court.
Sincerely submitted,
Matthew Hale, J.D
May 7th 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment