Schmid v. Cornell Corrections of America et al

Filing 113

ORDER Affirming 109 Report and Recommendations: Defendants Santhanbar and Schmidt are dismissed without prejudice and this case is dismissed without prejudice, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/16/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02003-CMA-MEH
TONY SCHMID,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORNELL CORRECTIONS OF AMERICA,
WARDEN VEACH,
DR. SHAVALINI M. SANTHANBAR, and
TIMOTHY F. LYDEN,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING OCTOBER 25, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the October 25, 2012 Recommendation
by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty. (Doc. # 109.) In his
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Defendants
Santhanbar and Schmidt for failure to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and
for dismissal of this action in its entirely due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
payment requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) and failure to respond to the Court’s
orders.
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. # 109 at 2 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge
Hegarty’s Recommendation were filed by either party. “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.”).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings in this case. Based on
this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s 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 Magistrate Judge Hegarty as the findings and conclusions of
this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 109) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
It is ORDERED that Defendants Santhanbar and Schmidt are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve them under Rule 4(m).
It is FURTHER ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff’s failure to fulfill his payment obligations and his failure
to comply with this Court’s orders.
DATED: November

16

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

2