Ford v. Melton et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CLIFTON ROBERT FORD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:25-cv-0584 DHU-JHR
JAMES BOWMAN, STEVEN E. BOYLE,
KARL MELTON, and LAURA WHITESIDE,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
THIS MATTER is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter’s
September 23, 2026, Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”), which
recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 30] and his Request for Immediate
Injunction [Doc. 33] be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[Doc. 34]. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file objections within fourteen (14)
days. [Id.] Having reviewed the PFRD and noting that the parties have filed no objections to it,
the Court concurs with the PFRD. 1
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
(1) the PFRD [Doc. 34] is ADOPTED and
(2) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 30] and his Request for Immediate Injunction
[Doc. 33] are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 “A party’s objections to [a PFRD] must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the
district court or for appellate review.” U.S. v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The
parties’ failure to timely object to the PFRD thus waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. In re
Key Energy Res. Inc., 230 F.3d 1197, 1199–1200 (10th Cir. 2000); One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d at 1059.
Case 2:25-cv-00584-DHU-JHR Document 35 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 1