Bruce et al v. Wilson, et al

Filing 53

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 52 Report and Recommendations.granting 39 Motion to Dismiss; denying 48 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; by Judge William J. Martinez on 11/4/2013.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-0491-WJM-CBS
ANTOINE BRUCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
C. WILSON,
A. OSAGIE,
F. CORDOVA, and
F. FETTERHOFF,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING OCTOBER 7, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the October 7, 2013 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 52)
that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 48) be denied. 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. 52 at 16.) 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. 52) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Motion Dismiss (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED;

(3)

The Claims against Defendants Osaige, Fetterhoff, and Wilson are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

(4)

The Claims against Defendant Cordova are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

(5)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 48) is DENIED; and

(6)

The Clerk shall close the case. Each party shall bear his/her own costs.
Dated this 4th day of November, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2