Karsten v. Davis et al
ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 26, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR THE COURT TO SET TIME LIMITS AND PROVIDE FORMS. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 26 is ADOPTED in its entirety and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's claims is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion for the Court to Set a Time Limit and Provide Forms 28 is DENIED, by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 5/15/2013. (wjmcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02107-RM-KLM
BRIAN RAY KARSTEN,
BLAKE R. DAVIS,
AMBER L. NELSON, and
FIVE JOHN/JANE DOES,
ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 26, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR THE COURT TO SET TIME LIMITS AND PROVIDE FORMS
This matter is before the Court on the April 26, 2013 Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 26) that Defendant Blake R.
Davis, Defendant Ronald Camacho, and Defendant Amber L. Nelson’s (collectively,
“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 20) (the
“Motion”) be granted. 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. 26, at 32.) No
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been filed. On May 7, 2013,
Plaintiff filed a Motion a Motion for the Court to Set a Time Limit and Provide Forms. In that
motion, Plaintiff essentially seeks a timeframe within which to amend his Complaint. Although
Plaintiff’s Motion does state that he “disagrees with some of the conclusions and believes that
caselaw in this District supports his claims under standards not addressed by the Magistrate”
(ECF No. 28, at 1), this is not a “specific written objection” within the meaning of FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b)(2) and will not be interpreted as such.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and sound, and
that there is no clear error of law or abuse of discretion. 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.”).
The Court notes that the dismissal as written in the Recommendation and adopted in this
order is without prejudice. The Plaintiff is hereby notified that forms for filing complaints are
available from the Clerk’s office.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 26) is ADOPTED in its entirety and
the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims is GRANTED; and
Plaintiff’s Motion for the Court to Set a Time Limit and Provide Forms (ECF No. 28) is
Dated this 15th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Raymond P. Moore
United States District Judge
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?