Johnson v. Myelin Productions

Filing 85

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 81 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Plaintiffs Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint ECF No. 77 is DENIED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 7/18/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01359-WJM-KLM
LARRY ELEVTHERIOS JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH ARTEMIS,
MELANIE DAVIES,
KAMILA DAVIES,
KIMBERLEE PRATT,
NICOLE STANIC,
ROMANEE STANIC, and
KAITLYN NOLAN
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING JUNE 19, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HIS AMENDED COMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the June 19, 2013 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 81) that
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 77) be denied. 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. 81, at 10-11) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.

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. 81) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 77) is DENIED.
Dated this 18th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2