Ledford v. Krieger et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB
CHARLES WILLIAM LEDFORD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARCIA S. KRIEGER,
MICHAEL J. WATANABE,
JAIME A. PEÑA,
DAVID STEINMAN,
VIRGINIA L. GRADY,
GREG M. FLYNN, and,
CLARISSA L. COATE.
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell’s
Recommendation 	to 	grant 	Virginia 	L. 	Grady’s 	motion 	to 	dismiss. 	ECF 	No. 	93
(Recommendation); ECF No. 37 (Defendant Virginia L. Grady’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint). No party objected to Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s
Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the
Recommendation as an order of this Court and GRANTS Ms. Grady’s motion to dismiss.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 94 filed 08/27/24 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 5

2
I. 	SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF
Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends that this Court dismiss the
claims you filed against Ms. Grady. She determined that your ineffective assistance of
counsel claims brought under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are barred by federal
law. She further determined that, even if you had brought the ineffective assistance of
counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment, your claim would still fail because Ms. Grady’s
alleged failure to request an identity hearing could not have prejudiced your defense.
At the end of her Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell
advised that you had 14 days after service of the Recommendation to file a written
objection. You did not file an objection or otherwise respond within that window. As
explained in more detail below, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation and has
determined that it is correct. Therefore, your claims against Ms. Grady are dismissed with
prejudice, which means that you are not allowed to refile these claims. See Charles v.
Hackford, No. 18-4024, 2018 WL 4006938, at *1 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2018) (unpublished) (a
“dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiff cannot return to federal court with the same
claims” (citing Styskal v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 365 F.3d 855, 859 (10th Cir.
2004))).
II. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, 	proceeding 	pro 	se, 	brought 	this 	action 	against 	seven 	Defendants
stemming from a 2004 criminal case. ECF No. 13 (Am. Compl.) at 1–3, 6–8. In that
underlying case, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United
States. On June 27, 2005, Judge Marcia S. Krieger sentenced Plaintiff to 24 months in
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 94 filed 08/27/24 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 5

3
prison and ordered him to make a restitution payment of $506,000.00. Despite pleading
guilty, Plaintiff argued—and continues to argue—that the government arrested the wrong
person.
In this civil case, like in his criminal case, Plaintiff alleges that “the defendant and
I were not the same entity and I was not a party to [that] action.” Id. at 6. He thus brings
claims against Judge Krieger and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for wrongfully
denying him his right to an “Identity Hearing.” ECF No. 13 at 1. He also filed suit against
his federal defender, prosecutors, and other federal employees involved in his criminal
case. Id. at 1–2. Before the Court is a motion to dismiss by Ms. Grady—his federal
defender in his criminal case.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter, the
presiding district judge must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
[recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. 72(b)(3). An
objection to a recommendation is properly made if it is both timely and specific. United
States v. 2121 East 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1059–60 (10th Cir. 1996). An objection is
sufficiently specific if it “enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—
factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1059. In conducting
its review, “[t]he 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).
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 94 filed 08/27/24 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 5

4
Moreover, because Plaintiff appears pro se, the Court liberally construes his filings
and holds them to less stringent standards than formal filings drafted by lawyers. See
United States v. Trent, 884 F.3d 985, 993 (10th Cir. 2018). However, the Court will not act
as Plaintiff’s advocate, Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th
Cir. 2005), and the Court holds Plaintiff to the same procedural rules and requirements of
substantive law that govern other litigants. Requena v. Roberts, 893 F.3d 1195, 1205 (10th
Cir. 2018).
IV. 	ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION
When—as is the case here—a party does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, the Court “may review a magistrate [judge]’s report under any standard
it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)). The Court is “accorded considerable
discretion” when reviewing “unchallenged” recommendations. Id. The Court has reviewed
Magistrate Judge Dominguez Braswell’s thorough Recommendation and is satisfied that
it is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record.
Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Dominguez
Braswell’s Recommendation, ECF No. 93, as an order of this Court. Ms. Grady’s motion
to dismiss, ECF No. 37, is GRANTED.
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 94 filed 08/27/24 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 5

5
DATED this 27th day of August 2024.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:23-cv-02320-CNS-MDB Document 94 filed 08/27/24 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 5