Lomax v. Trani et al

Filing 43

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 42 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 39 is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint ECF No. 14 is hereby DISMISSED, by Judge William J. Martinez on 4/21/2014.(evana, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge William J. Martínez Civil Action No. 13-cv-0707-WJM-KMT ARTHUR JAMES LOMAX, Plaintiff, v. JAMES LANDER (FCF), NATHAN WIGGIN (FCF), M. SCHNELL (FCF), IVETTE RUIZ (AVCF), PENNY SPEARING (AVCF), MS. PRIESTLY (AVCF), MS. APODACA (AVCF), and MR. MCGILL (AVCF), Defendants. ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 18, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS This matter is before the Court on the March 18, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 42) that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) be granted. 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. 42, at 15-16.) 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. 42) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 39) is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14) is hereby DISMISSED. Dated this 21st day of April, 2014. BY THE COURT: _________________________ William J. Martínez United States District Judge 2

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?