Ozsusamlar v. Davis et al.

Filing 89

ORDER adopting 86 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff's complaint [# 38 ] against defendant, R. Bradford, is DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendant, R. Bradford, is DROPPED as a party to this case, and the caption shall be AMENDED accordingly. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/20/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00714-REB-MJW
OSMAN NURI OZSUSAMLAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. WILEY, Former Warden, USP-ADX Florence, CO,
BLAKE DAVIS, Warden, USP-ADX Florence, CO,
CHARLES DANIELS, Warden USP-HIGH Florence, CO,
K. JOHNSON, Associated Warden USP-ADX Florence, CO
MR. SPROUL, H J, K Unit Manager USP-ADX Florence, CO
M. COLLINS, Administrative Remedy Coordinator, USP-ADX,
WILMAR HAYGOOD, J, K Unit Counselor USP-ADX, and
R. BRADFORD, SIS Agent USP-ADX,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
______________________________________________________________________
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the Recommendation of the Magistrate that the
Claims Against Defendant Be Dismissed [#86] 1 filed July 11, 2013. I approve and
adopt the recommendation and dismiss the claims against defendant, R. Bradford.
No objections to the recommendation were filed. Thus, I review it only for plain
error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d
1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). As detailed in the recommendation, the plaintiff has not
served the defendant named as R. Bradford. The magistrate judge issued an Order To

1

“[#86]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper
by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

1

Show Cause [#57] to the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to show cause why his claim
against R. Bradford should not be dismissed for lack of service. The plaintiff has not
shown good cause for his failure to serve defendant R. Bradford. On this basis, the
magistrate judge recommends that the claims against R. Bradford be dismissed without
prejudice under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. The conclusions and
recommendation of the magistrate judge are correct. Finding no error, much less plain
error, in the disposition recommended by the magistrate judge, I find and conclude that
the recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation That the Claims Against the Defendant R.
Bradford Be Dismissed [#86] filed July 11, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an
order of this court;
2. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1, the plaintiff’s
complaint [#38] against defendant, R. Bradford, is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. That defendant, R. Bradford, is DROPPED as a party to this case, and the
caption shall be AMENDED accordingly.
Dated September 20, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Robert E. Blackburn
Robert E. Blackburn
United States District Judge

2