Drake v. No Named Respondent
ORDER adopting 12 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This case is dismissed. This case is closed. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/7/2015. (mlace, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 12–cv–02608–REB–KMT
RONDA KAY DRAKE,
NO NAMED RESPONDENT,
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before me on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#12]1 filed January 4, 2013. No objections to the recommendation were filed.
Therefore, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no error, much
less plain error, in the recommendation, I find and conclude that recommendation
should be approved and adopted.
After the plaintiff filed her initial complaint [#1], she was ordered to file an
amended complaint to correct fundamental deficiencies in her complaint [#1]. The order
[#4] identified the deficiencies. Notably, the plaintiff did not name any defendants in her
complaint, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a), and her complaint did not comply with
“[#12]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Further, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, the
complaint was not signed.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint [#5]. However, that complaint [#5] does
not appear to have been in response to the order [#4] of the court, because the
complaint was filed on the same day as the order. Further, the plaintiff sought an
extension of time to file an amended complaint. Motion [#7]. That extension of time
was granted. Order [#9]. The plaintiff was given until December 10, 2012, to file an
amended complaint. However, no amended complaint was filed at any time after that
order [#9] was entered.
The operative complaint [#5] does not name any defendants and does not
comply with Rule 8. The purported signature, “X as Mark Rule 11,” does not comply
with Rule 11. Complaint [#5], CM/ECF p. 8. The magistrate judge recommends that
this case be dismissed due to the failure of the plaintiff to comply with Rule 8 in her
operative complaint [#5]. That failure plus the failure to comply with Rules 10(a) and 11
merits dismissal of the complaint.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#9] filed
January 4, 2013, is approved and adopted as an order of this court;
2. That this case is dismissed; and
3. That this case is closed.
Dated October 7, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
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?