Humood, v. City of Aurora, Colo., The ,et al.,

Filing 53

ORDER adopting 52 Report and Recommendations, granting 28 Motion to Dismiss, granting 31 Motion to Dismiss, granting 32 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 8/28/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02185-RM-CBS
ABEER HUMOOD,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, District 2 and Police
Headquarters 15001 E Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012;
WILKINSON (OFFICER #256460), an individual, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E
Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012;
JASON CONDREAY, an individual, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E Alameda
Parkway Aurora, CO 80012;
PONICH (OFFICER #301367), an individual, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E
Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012;
KEN SULLIVAN, in his official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the
City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, Co 80012;
DEB WALLACE, in her official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the
City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012;
BERNARD CELESTIN, in his official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in
the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012;
SANDRA SWEENEY, in her official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in
the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012; and
DAVE WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the
City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 52)
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation Regarding Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (“Recommendation”) (ECF No.
52), recommending the following motions be granted: (1) “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss State
Law Claims, the Civil Service Commissioners, and Claims for Exemplary Damages against the

City of Aurora” (ECF No. 28); (2) Defendant Wilkinson’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (ECF No. 31); and (3) “Motion by Defendant Ponich to Dismiss Complaint
(Doc. 9) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6)” (ECF No. 32). The Recommendation is
incorporated herein by this reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties they had fourteen days after the service of a
copy of the Recommendation to serve and file written objections to the Recommendation. The
time permitted for any objections has expired and no objection to the Recommendation has been
filed.
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. 1 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 as follows:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 52) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety;

1

The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal on bases raised by Defendants and, as permitted, additional bases as
well. See Phillips v. Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 58 Fed.Appx. 407, 409 (10th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua sponte
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (in proceedings in forma pauperis, court shall dismiss
case at any time if it determines that it fails to state a claim). In addition, the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff
with “observations” concerning generalized allegations should he elect to file another amended complaint. Plaintiff
did not object to any aspect of the Recommendation.

2