Ikner v. UPS

Filing 14

ORDER. The Recommendation That This Action Be Dismissed Based Upon the Plaintiffs Failure To Appear, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure To Comply With Court Orders 13 filed 3/30/2010, APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court. This action is DISMISSED PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 41(b). Judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, UPS, against theplaintiff, Hosanna Ikner. The defendant is AWARDED its costs. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/7/2011.(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 09-cv-02638 HOSANNA IKNER, Plaintiff, v. UPS, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Blackburn, J. The matter before me is the Recommendation That This Action Be Dismissed Based Upon the Plaintiff’s Failure To Appear, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure To Comply With Court Orders [#13]1 filed March 30, 2010. No objections to the recommendation have been filed and, therefore, I review it only for plain error.2 See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be 1 “[#13]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order. 2 This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed her 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)). approved and adopted. The magistrate judge details in his recommendation the factual basis for his conclusion that the plaintiff has not prosecuted this case. On March 3, 2010, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause [#10] to the plaintiff, directing the plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. The plaintiff did not respond to the order to show cause [#10] or to other orders issued by the court. Except for the filing of the complaint [#1] and the plaintiff’s appearance at a status conference on January 21, 2010, the plaintiff has made no effort to prosecute this case THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Recommendation That This Action Be Dismissed Based Upon the Plaintiff’s Failure To Appear, Failure to Prosecute, and Failure To Comply With Court Orders [#13] filed March 30, 2010, APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 2. That this action is DISMISSED PREJUDICE under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) and 41(b); 3. That if the defendant wishes to seek an award of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the plaintiff’s failure to appear at the two scheduled Rule 16 conferences set for March 2, 2010, and March 30, 2010, the defendant SHALL FILE a motion seeking an award of such attorney fees and costs on or before December 2, 2011; 4. That judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, UPS, against the 2 plaintiff, Hosanna Ikner; and 5. That the defendant is AWARDED its costs, to be taxed by the Clerk of the Court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1. Dated November 7, 2011, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT: 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?