Hutchinson v. Houle et al

Filing 61

ORDER that The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 56 , is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 48 is GRANTED IN PART; and This action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M., by Judge William J. Martinez on 1/4/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03108-WJM-MEH
JOHN HUTCHINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. HOULE, a Buena Vista Minimum Center,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING DECEMBER 13, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
AND DISMISSING THIS ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the December 13, 2012 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No.
56) that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48) be granted in part. 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. 56, at 1 n. 2.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been filed by either party. The Court also notes that as of
October 1, 2012 all mailings to the Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable. On
October 2, 2012 this Court entered an Order (ECF No. 39) placing Plaintiff on notice that
pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M a pro se party is required to file a Notice of Change
of Address with the Court if the party changes his/her address. To date no Notice of

Change of Address has been filed by Plaintiff.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and
sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.”); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991)
(“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report
under any standard it deems appropriate.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 56) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART; and

(3)

This action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute
and for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M.
Dated this 4th day of January, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2