Ford v. Melton et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
CLIFTON ROBERT FORD,
Plaintiff,
v. 	No. 2:25-cv-00584 DHU-JHR
JAMES BOWMAN, STEVEN E. BOYLE,
KARL MELTON, and LAURA WHITESIDE,
Defendants.
AMENDED ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The Magistrate Judge filed his Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition
(“PFRD”) on March 11, 2026. Doc. 25. The PFRD notified the parties of their ability to file
objections within fourteen days, and that failure to do so waived appellate review. Id. at 6. The
objections period expired on March 25, 2026, and no objections were filed before that date. On
March 31, 2026, the Court adopted Judge Ritter’s PFRD, denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 18), granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22), and granting Plaintiff
leave to obtain licensed counsel and file an amended complaint in compliance with the rules of
civil procedure within 60 days of the Court’s Order. See Doc. 27.
On April 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed his Response and Objections to Judge Ritter’s PFRD. Doc.
28. Acknowledging that the objections are not timely, Plaintiff requests “forbearance” of the 14-
day objection deadline because he was out of state without access to his email for much of the
objection period. Id. at 1. The Court construes this as a Motion for Extension of Time and
GRANTS it. Therefore, the Court now amends its March 31 Order (Doc. 27) to reflect
consideration of Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 28).
Case 2:25-cv-00584-DHU-JHR Document 29 Filed 04/17/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record
and all parts of the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD that have been properly objected to. After conducting
this de novo review and having thoroughly considered the Magistrate Judge’s PFRD and the
objections, the Court finds no reason either in law or fact to depart from the Magistrate Judge’s
recommended disposition.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 25)
are ADOPTED;
2. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18);
3. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) without prejudice;
and
4. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to obtain licensed counsel and file an amended
complaint in compliance with the rules of civil procedure within 60 days of entry of
this Amended Order. The 60-day deadline set by the Court’s original Order (Doc. 27)
is vacated, and Plaintiff should calendar the 60-day deadline from the date of this
Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________________
HONORABLE DAVID HERRERA URIAS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00584-DHU-JHR Document 29 Filed 04/17/26 Page 2 of 2