ORDER RE: RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#342],1 filed July 24, 2014; (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#343], filed July 28, 2014; (3) Plaintiff's Objections to Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge Hegarty in Docket Number 342, Filed July 24, 2014 and Docket Number 343, Filed July 28, 2014 [#356], filed August 21, 2014;2 and (4) defendant Heller Ehrman (California), a Professional Corporation's Objection to United States Magistrate Judge's July 24, 2014 Recommendation [#342] [#348], filed August 7, 2014.

The plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed. Also, I have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable case law.

I overrule plaintiff's objections, but sustain the objection of defendant Heller Ehrman, PC. I thus respectfully reject that portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation suggesting that the court has personal jurisdiction over this defendant. In all other respects, I approve and adopt the remainder of the both recommendations and grant the apposite motions to dismiss which they address.

The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Plaintiff's objections are imponderous and without merit.3 I am disinclined to provide a festooned reiteration of the magistrate judge's thorough and astute consideration of the issues raised by and inherent to the underlying motions. It is clear that the majority of plaintiff's claims against the majority of the movants are barred by the variously applicable statutes of limitation. The magistrate judge considered, but properly rejected, plaintiff's arguments that equitable estoppel might apply in the circumstances of this case.

Plaintiff's further suggestion that the continuing offense doctrine also might permit these claims to proceed is procedurally improper and substantively inapplicable. As I have noted on previous occasions in this very case (see Order Overruling Objection to and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge at 2 [#357], filed August 27, 2014), an issue that is not raised in response to the apposite motions to dismiss or otherwise brought to the attention of the magistrate judge is waived and may not be brought forward for the first time in plaintiff's objection. See Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996).

Substantively, the continuing violation theory has limited, if any, application outside the Title VII context. See Rassam v. San Juan College Board, 1997 WL 253048 at *3 (10th Cir. May 15, 1997). See also Houck v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas, 1998 WL 792154 at *3 (10th Cir. Nov. 13, 1998) (noting that Tenth Circuit "has never specifically held that the continuing violation theory applies to claims brought pursuant to § 1983" and has refused to apply the doctrine to section 1981 claims based on recognition "that the continuing violation theory is a creature of the need to file administrative charges"). Plaintiff's conclusory statements that his allegations are all of a piece are insufficient to convince me that the theory should be expanded to encompass his claims in this case.

I find I must respectfully reject, however, the magistrate judge's recommendation insofar as it suggests that the court has personal jurisdiction over defendant Heller Ehrman, PC. Assuming arguendo that the defendant, Heller Ehrman, PC, is actually or functionally equivalent to the entity that allegedly formed an attorney-client relationship with Barra Partners and Aran Finance (Heller Ehrman, LLP, also a defendant in this lawsuit), the complaint alleges nothing apart from the mere formation of that relationship that might be thought to constitute an action or activity directed purposefully at Colorado. Although plaintiff alleges that this defendant owed him fiduciary duties, he has not pleaded a single fact showing any action of Heller Ehrman (PC or LLP) that might constitute a dereliction of those duties. Heller Ehrman, PC, therefore lacks the minimum contacts necessary to establish specific personal jurisdiction over it in this forum.4

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#342], filed July 24, 2014, is, respectfully, REJECTED IN PART and APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN PART as follows:

2. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#343], filed July 28, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

3. That the objections stated in Plaintiff's Objections to Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge Hegarty in Docket Number 342, Filed July 24, 2014 and Docket Number 343, Filed July 28, 2014 [#356], filed August 21, 2014 are OVERRULED;

4. That the objection to the assertion of personal jurisdiction as stated by defendant Heller Ehrman (California), a Professional Corporation in its Objection to United States Magistrate Judge's July 24, 2014 Recommendation [#342] [#348], filed August 7, 2014, is SUSTAINED;

5. That the following motions are GRANTED:

6. That plaintiff's claims against the following defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: Marcia Ann Bruggeman-Hatch; Seamus John Paul Hatch; Jeffrey L. Schottler; Michael Douglas Bock; Aran Strategic Finance, LLC; Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP, a limited liability partnership; Savvis, Inc., a corporation; Heller Ehrman (California), a professional corporation; and Robert A Epsen;

7. That at the time judgment enters, judgment with prejudice SHALL ENTER on behalf of the following defendants against plaintiff, Jon A. Goodwin, as to all claims for relief and causes of action asserted against them in this action: Marcia Ann Bruggeman-Hatch; Seamus John Paul Hatch; Jeffrey L. Schottler; Michael Douglas Bock; Aran Strategic Finance, LLC; Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP, a limited liability partnership; Savvis, Inc., a corporation; Heller Ehrman (California), a professional corporation; and Robert A Epsen; and

8. That defendants, Marcia Ann Bruggeman-Hatch; Seamus John Paul Hatch; Jeffrey L. Schottler; Michael Douglas Bock; Aran Strategic Finance, LLC; Gunderson Dettmer Stough Villeneuve Franklin & Hachigian, LLP, a limited liability partnership; Savvis, Inc., a corporation; Heller Ehrman (California), a professional corporation; and Robert A Epsen, are DROPPED as named parties to this action, and the case caption AMENDED accordingly.5