Martinez et al v. Ritter et al

Filing 29

ORDER ACCEPTED 28 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Granting 23 Defendants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, 22 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 6/30/2010.(erv, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 09-cv-02699-CMA-MEH GABRIEL W. MARTINEZ, and THOMAS A. CARLLON, Plaintiffs, v. BILL RITTER, as Governor of the State of Colorado, JOHN W. SUTHERS, as Attorney General of the State of Colorado, both in their official capacities, and THE STATE OF COLORADO, Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JUNE 9, 2010 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the June 9, 2010 Recommendation by the Magistrate Judge that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction be granted and that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. (See Doc. ## 22, 23, 28.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 28 at 1 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate . . . [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Based on its review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 28), filed June 9, 2010, is ACCEPTED, and, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. # 23), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, (Doc. # 22), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED: June 30 , 2010 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 2

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?