Tejan v. Jones

Filing 27

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 25 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs Amended Complaint ECF No. 5 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to defendant Joe Ortiz, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute; The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to remove defendant Joe Ortiz from the caption of this case, by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/4/2012.(ervsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 12-cv-01156-WJM-BNB JOSHUA TEJAN, Plaintiff, v. SUSAN JONES, Warden, FCF, JOE ORTIZ, Executive Director, DOC 2004, ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Executive Director, DOC 2010, RUSTY LANDER, SOTMP Coordinator, FCF, and DANA BUSTOS, SOTMP Hearing Officer, Defendant. ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ADOPTING OCTOBER 29, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO DEFENDANT JOE ORTIZ, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE ______________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the October 29, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 25) that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) be dismissed as to Defendant Joe Ortiz for failure to prosecute. 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. 25, at 2 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been filed by either 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. 25) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to defendant Joe Ortiz, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute; (3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to remove defendant Joe Ortiz from the caption of this case. Dated this 4th day of December, 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?