Riley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
Filing
22
ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 21 , is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs Verified Complaint ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendants Law Offices of Robert J. Hopp & Associates, LLC, Robert J. Hopp, and Sally Zeman for failure to prosecute, insufficiency of service of process, failure to timely effect service of process, and failure to comply with an Order of the Court. By Judge William J. Martinez on 10/25/2012.(ervsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-0821-WJM-BNB
FRANCES RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. HOPP & ASSOCIATES, LLC,
ROBERT J. HOPP, and
SALLY ZEMAN,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO
SOME DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the September 27, 2012 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 21)
that Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1) be dismissed without prejudice as to
Defendants Law Offices of Robert J. Hopp & Associates, LLC, Robert J. Hopp, and Sally
Zeman. 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. 21, at 3 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been filed by any party.
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. 21) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;
(2)
Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
as to Defendants Law Offices of Robert J. Hopp & Associates, LLC, Robert J.
Hopp, and Sally Zeman for failure to prosecute, insufficiency of service of process,
failure to timely effect service of process, and failure to comply with an Order of
the Court.
Dated this 25th day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?