Coit v. Zavaras et al

Filing 163

ORDER Adopting and Affirming Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boland 153 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. ORDERED that that the claims against defendants Michael Duss art, Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2, and Jane/John Doe #3 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. The Clerk of the Court shall amend the case caption to reflect the dismissal of these defendants by Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 02/04/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
Civil Action No.

12-cv-00609-WYD-MJW

JILL COIT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, et. al,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (“Recommendation”), filed January 10, 2013. (ECF No. 153,
Recommendation). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Watanabe recommends that the
claims against defendants Michael Dussart, Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2, and
Jane/John Doe #3 should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. (Recommendation at 2). The Recommendation is
incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Watanabe advised the parties that written objections were due
within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation.
(Recommendation at 2-3). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the
Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review
the Recommendation Aunder any standard [I] deem[] appropriate.@ Summers v. Utah,
927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I
review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of
the record."1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on
the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Watanabe=s Recommendation is
thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Watanabe that that
the claims against defendants Michael Dussart, Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2,
and Jane/John Doe #3 should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and
this Order.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boland
(ECF No. 153) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that that the claims against defendants Michael Dussart,
Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2, and Jane/John Doe #3 are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1.
The Clerk of the Court shall amend the case caption to reflect the dismissal of these
defendants.

1

Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to
law" standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b).

-2-

Dated: February 4, 2013
BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel
Wiley Y. Daniel
United States Senior District Judge

-3-

-4-