Broadus v. Timme et al

Filing 84

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 4/25/12. (cmacd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00802-CMA-KMT
JOHN MICHAEL BROADUS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN RAE TIMME,
LIEUTENANT JACKIE McCALL,
LIEUTENANT DIRECTO,
SERGEANT ERPS,
SERGEANT DAVIES,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HOLESTEAD,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER McCALL,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER SNIDER,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LOPEZ,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STRICKLETT, and
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS,
Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. This case was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636 and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 15.) On January 30, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Recommendation (Doc. # 75) concerning the motions to dismiss filed by Defendant
Erps (Doc. # 52), Defendant Directo (Doc. # 57), and Defendants Zavaras, Timme,
Lieutenant McCall, Correctional Officer McCall, Davies, Holestead, Snider, Lopez,
and Stricklett (Doc. # 59), as well as Plaintiff=s AMotion to Seek Leave@ to file a second
amended complaint (Doc. # 63). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the three

motions to dismiss be granted and that Plaintiff=s motion be denied without prejudice.
(Doc. # 75 at 25.) Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 76.)
On February 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order adopting and affirming the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. (Doc. # 78.) Consistent with the Recommendation, the Court allowed Plaintiff to “re-file his motion for leave to file a seconded
amended complaint so as to attempt to cure the deficiencies of his ‘Motion to Seek
Leave.’” (Id. at 3.)
On March 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed a new “Motion to Seek Leave Pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 15.” (Doc. # 81.) However, as noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Minute Order
that same day (Doc. # 83), Plaintiff’s new motion did not cure the deficiencies
addressed in the Recommendation (Doc. # 76) and reemphasized in the Order adopting
and affirming the Recommendation (Doc. # 78). Among the deficiencies noted by the
Magistrate Judge were Plaintiff’s failure to “detail the proposed amendments and the
reasons why such amendments are necessary” and to “attach the proposed amended
complaint to the motion.” (Doc. # 83.) Plaintiff was given until April 6, 2012, to “refile a
proper Motion for Leave to Amend . . . .” (Id.) That date is long past, and the Court has
received no additional filings from Plaintiff.
Accordingly, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with the April 6, 2012 deadline
to submit a proper Motion for Leave to Amend, the Court ORDERS that this case be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED: April

25

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
2