Carrillo et al v. Castle, Stawiarki, LLC et al

Filing 256

ORDER Magistrate Judge Hegartys Recommendation ECF No. 245 , is ACCEPTED; The claims brought by Plaintiffs Rocio G. Villareal, Jose A. Charupe, Maria Fernandez, Elda Urquidi, and Ernesto Ledezma are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prose cute and failure to comply with multiple Court Orders; As these were the only Plaintiffs remaining in this action, the Clerk shall close this case and enter judgment in favor of Defendants; and All parties shall bear their own costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/27/2012.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Case No. 12-cv-0003-WJM-MEH
ROCIO G. VILLARREAL,
JOSE A. CHARUPE,
MARIA C. FERNANDEZ,
ELDA URQUIDI, and
ERNESTO LEDEZMA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CASTLE, STAWIARSKI, LLC,
LAWRENCE CASTLE,
GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS (GTS),
THE HOPP LAW FIRM, LLC,
ROBERT J. HOPP,
GARY GLENN,
CBS 4 NEWS KCNC-TV,
UNIVISION COLORADO KCEC-TV, and
DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CLAIMS BROUGHT BY ALL REMAINING PLAINTIFFS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

This matter is before the Court on the April 9, 2012 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that the following Plaintiffs’ claims be
dismissed without prejudice: (1) Rocio G. Villareal; (2) Jose A. Charupe; (3) Maria
Fernandez; (4) Elda Urquidi; and (5) Ernesto Ledezema (collectively “Plaintiffs”).1 (ECF
1

The Court notes that these are the only Plaintiffs remaining in this case. All other
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims. (ECF No. 252.)

No. 245.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), a party has 14 days after
being served with a copy of the Recommendation to file specific written objections to
the proposed findings. Though more than fourteen days have passed, no objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation were filed by any of the Plaintiffs. “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 thorough and comprehensive
analyses and recommendations are 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.

Magistrate Judge Hegarty’s Recommendation (ECF No. 245) is ACCEPTED;

2.

The claims brought by Plaintiffs Rocio G. Villareal, Jose A. Charupe, Maria
Fernandez, Elda Urquidi, and Ernesto Ledezma are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with multiple Court
orders;

3.

As these were the only Plaintiffs remaining in this action, the Clerk shall close
this case and enter judgment in favor of Defendants; and
2

4.

All parties shall bear their own costs.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3