Evans v. Colorado Housing and Finance Authority et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-SBP
RACHEL EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Timothy P. O’Hara. ECF No. 73. Magistrate Judge O’Hara recommends dismissing
Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not
object to the Recommendation. For the following reasons, the Court affirms and adopts
the Recommendation and dismisses the case without prejudice.
I. 	SUMMARY FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFF
Your claims arise from your disputed mortgage payments and eviction. Magistrate
Judge O’Hara determined that you did not have standing to bring your claims against
HUD and recommended dismissing them.
Magistrate Judge O’Hara advised that you had 14 days after service of the
Recommendation to file a written objection. ECF No. 73 at 14, n.11. You did not file an
objection or otherwise respond within that window. As explained in more detail below, the
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 02/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
Court has reviewed the Recommendation and has determined that it is correct. The Court
will explain why it is adopting the Recommendation in more detail below.
Because the Court is affirming Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s Recommendation and
granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, your claims against Defendant are dismissed
without prejudice, which means that you may refile your claims in state court against the
proper defendants if you can satisfy the procedural and jurisdictional requirements.
II. 	RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1
Plaintiff originally filed this case on March 11, 2024, in District Court in Mesa
County, Colorado. ECF No. 3 at 1. On April 17, 2024, HUD removed the action to federal
court. ECF No. 1 at 2. Because Plaintiff’s amended complaint only listed HUD as a
defendant, the other state court defendants were terminated. ECF Nos. 7, 14. Plaintiff
was evicted from the property on June 7. Plaintiff filed numerous motions for injunctive
relief in June, which were denied. ECF Nos. 12, 13, 23, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 45, 52.
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on July 9, 2024. ECF No. 36. Plaintiff filed a
response on November 21, 2024, which the Court accepted as timely filed. ECF No. 68.
Magistrate Judge O’Hara held a status conference on December 9, 2024, and heard
arguments from both parties on the motion to dismiss. ECF Nos. 70, 72. Magistrate Judge
O’Hara issued his Recommendation on January 9, 2025. ECF No. 73. Plaintiff did not
object.
1 Magistrate Judge O’Hara provided a detailed factual background of this case in the Recommendation,
which the Court need not repeat.
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 02/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
III. 	ANALYSIS & ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to
consider 	dispositive 	motions 	and 	submit 	recommendations 	to 	the 	Court. 	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. P. 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).
When—as is the case here—neither party objects to a 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 O’Hara’s Recommendation and is
satisfied that it is sound, the analysis is thorough and comprehensive, and there is no
clear error on the face of the record. Plaintiff does not have standing to bring her claims
against HUD because she cannot establish that her injuries are traceable to HUD, or that
the relief requested of this Court would redress her injuries. The Court thus lacks subject
matter jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed.
The Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s Recommendation,
ECF No. 73, in its entirety as an order of this Court. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 02/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 36. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this
case.
DATED this 3rd day of February 2025.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
BY THE	HE	E	HE	E C	C	C	C	C	COURT	T	T	T:
__	__	_____	___ __________	__	__	____	___ __	__	_____________	___ _
Ch	C	C	C arlotteeeee N. S	S	S	Swe	w	w	w	w eney
United Sta	ta	ta	ta	t te	te	te	te	t s Districtttt JJJJudge
Case No. 1:24-cv-01033-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 02/03/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4