Valles v. Gen-X Clothing No 63 et al

Filing 59

ORDER that the Recommendation 58 is MODIFIED as stated herein and the Plaintiff's remaining claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 3/10/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00201-RM-KLM
HILLARY VALLES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN COLLAZO RANGEL,
EAGLE CLAW SECURITY LLC, and
ARACELI GALEOTE, its owner,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Order and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 58) dated January 15, 2014, which
recommended the Court dismiss the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Recommendation properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to object to the Recommendation. No party has filed an
objection to the dismissal and the time for doing so has passed.
“[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of
unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may
review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991). The history of the filing of this action and the original basis for
the Court’s jurisdiction are set forth in the Recommendation. The Court has considered the

Recommendation, the parties’ lack of objection to the dismissal, the Court file, and the
applicable law. Upon considering these matters, and having evaluated whether to exercise its
discretion to try state claims in the absence of any triable federal claims, the Court agrees
dismissal of the action is appropriate. But the Court determines dismissal to be appropriate
because it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims
upon the dismissal of the claim over which it had original federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Wittner
v. Banner Health, 720 F.3d 770, 781 (10th Cir. 2013) (district court with discretion to dismiss
supplemental state law claims once it dismissed federal question claim, but should consider four
factors in deciding whether to retain state claims); Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 58 F.3d
533, 541 ( 10th Cir. 1995) (same). It is therefore
ORDERED that the Recommendation (ECF No. 58) is MODIFIED as stated herein and
the Plaintiff’s remaining claims are hereby dismissed without prejudice.
DATED this 10th day of March, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2