Garcia v. Graves, et al

Filing 56

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 51 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion for Sanction of Dismissal ECF No. 47 is GRANTED, the Courts Order to Show Cause ECF No. 50 is made absolute, and the above captioned-matter i s hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Defendants Motion for Imposition of Fees and Costs ECF No. 47 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 54.3; and Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery ECF No. 34 , as well as Plaintiffs Motion to Stay ECF No. 38 , are DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendant, who shall have her costs. by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/18/2013.(ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 12-cv-2718-WJM-KLM
TINA GARCIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDY D. GRAVES,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING NOVEMBER 18, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE AND DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the November 18, 2013 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the “Recommendation”). (ECF No. 51)
The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Magistrate Judge Mix recommended that Defendant’s Motion for Sanction of
Dismissal or in the Alternative Motion for Imposition of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 47) be
granted to the extent that Defendant seeks dismissal of this action, and that the Court’s
Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
(ECF No. 50) be made absolute. (ECF No. 51 at 6.) The Recommendation advised the
parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served
with a copy of the Recommendation. (Id. at 7.) 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. 51) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendant’s Motion for Sanction of Dismissal (ECF No. 47) is GRANTED, the
Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 50) is made absolute, and the above
captioned-matter is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b);

(3)

Defendant’s Motion for Imposition of Fees and Costs (ECF No. 47) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR. 54.3; and

(4)

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 34), as well as Plaintiff’s
Motion to Stay (ECF No. 38), are DENIED as MOOT.
The Clerk shall enter Judgment in favor of Defendant, who shall have her costs.

2

Dated this 18th day of December, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

3