Escobar v. Foster et al

Filing 52

ORDER affirming 42 Report and Recommendations. Defendants Keleman and Versteegh are dismissed by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 7/10/12.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00489-CMA-KLM
JOSE MEDINA ESCOBAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATE WARDEN S. FOSTER,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR L. REID,
MAJOR L. MALFELD,
LIEUTENANT L. TRAVIS,
LIEUTENANT TEDEMANN,
LIEUTENANT BURKE,
CAPTAIN PADILLA,
CAPTAIN D. WILLIAMS,
SERGEANT MARQUEZ,
SERGEANT MONTGOMERY,
SERGEANT KELEMAN,
SERGEANT HAWKINS,
SERGEANT FRETWELL,
C/O CALDARONELLO,
C/O P. ARCHULETA,
C/O ALANIS,
C/O AURITI,
C/O SAUCIDO,
C/O KITCHEN,
C/O S. HARTUNG,
C/O MONTANEZ,
C/O B. TETRICK, and
C/O VERSTEEGH,
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING JUNE 18, 2012 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the June 18, 2012 Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix that Defendants Keleman and Versteegh be
dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. # 42.) On June 5, 2012, the Magistrate Judge
ordered Plaintiff to show cause as to why his claims against Defendants Keleman and
Versteegh should not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Doc. # 32.) Although
Plaintiff filed a timely response on June 14, 2012 (Doc. # 36), he did not provide any
new addresses at which Defendants Keleman or Versteegh could be served, prompting
the Magistrate Judge to find that “Plaintiff cannot provide the necessary information to
effect service on Defendants Keleman and Versteegh.” (Doc. # 36.) Thus, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendants Keleman and Versteegh be dismissed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
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. # 147 at 31.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge
Watanabe’s Recommendation have been filed by Plaintiff, nor has Plaintiff effectuated
service on Defendants Keleman and Versteegh. “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.”).

2

The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings, including the June 5, 2012
Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause, and the
Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge
Mix’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 Mix as the findings and conclusions
of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 42) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Keleman and Versteegh are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as parties to this action, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m), and that the caption on all subsequent filings shall reflect the removal
of Sergeant Keleman and C/O Versteegh as Defendants in this case.
DATED: July 10

, 2012
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3