Scarlet Ranch et al v. Steele et al

Filing 27

(CORRECTED) ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN DOE OFFICER DEFENDANTS re: 26 Order on Report and Recommendations. Order was corrected to reference all defendants in the caption. By Judge William J. Martinez on 6/8/2012. (sahsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03061-WJM-MJW
SCARLET RANCH, a privately owned club,
BRADLEY MITCHELL,
KENDALL SEIFERT, and
ERIN SCHREIBERG
Plaintiffs,
v.
DANIEL STEELE, Sergeant,
ANDREW HOWARD, Sergeant
CHRIS SCHOTTS, Officer,
NICK RANDOLPH, Officer,
PHILIP COLEMAN, Officer,
ROBERT FAMBROUGH, Officer,
ANTONIO GUARDADO, Officer, and
JOHN DOE OFFICERS I-III
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CLAIMS AGAINST JOHN DOE OFFICER DEFENDANTS

This matter is before the Court on the May 15, 2012 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe that Plaintiffs’ claims against the three
John Doe Officers be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m) and Local Rule 41.1. (ECF No. 24.) 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF

No. 24 at 3.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have been filed. “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 concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommendation
is correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s May 15, 2012 Recommendation (ECF No. 24) is
ACCEPTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s claims against the three John Doe Officer Defendants are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

3.

The Clerk shall terminate this action as to the three John Doe Officer
Defendants; and

4.

The caption for all future filings shall omit the three John Doe Officer Defendants.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
2