Sparks v. Singh et al

Filing 56

ORDER Adopting 54 Recommendation that the Claims Against Defendant Michael Aasen be Dismissed. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1, Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Michael Aasen are DISMISSED without prejudice. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 07/25/13. (alvsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01897-RM-MJW
STEPHEN THENE SPARKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEJINDER SINGH, Physician Assistant,
LISA HANKS, Nurse,
TED LAWRENCE, Physician Assistant, Acting Health Service Administrator,
MICHAEL AASEN, MD,
ROBBIE QUICK, Health Service Administrator,
TOM CLEMENTS, C.D.O.C. Director,
STEVE HARTLEY, Warden, and
COLORADO HEALTH PARTNERS (C.H.P.),
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CLAIMS AGAINST
DEFENDANT MICHAEL AASEN BE DISMISSED (ECF NO. 54)

This matter is before the Court on the July 9, 2013 Recommendation that the Claims
Against Defendant Michael Aasen be Dismissed (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 54) due to
Plaintiff’s failure to effect service on Defendant Aasen. The Recommendation advised the
parties they had fourteen days after the service of the Recommendation to serve and file any
written objections. The time permitted for any objections has expired and no objection to the
Recommendation has been filed.

The Court has reviewed the record and is mindful that Plaintiff is a pro se party. The
Court concludes 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 Notes
(“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.”). It is therefore
ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 54) is ADOPTED in its entirety
as an order of this Court; and
2. That pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendant Michael Aasen are DISMISSED without prejudice.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2