Meyers v. Pfizer Inc. et al

Filing 68

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 59 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 39 is GRANTED; and The above-captioned matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay his or its own attorneys fees and costs, by Judge William J. Martinez on 6/2/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1508-WJM-CBS
DONALD P. MEYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
PFIZER, INC., and
IAN READ, CEO,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 21, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the April 21, 2014 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 59) 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. 59, at 10.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.1

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on May 2, 2014 (ECF No. 61), as
well as a duplicate Notice of Appeal on May 19, 2014 (ECF No. 65). Plaintiff’s appeal was
dismissed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of prosecution on May 23, 2014. (See
ECF No. 67.) Because Plaintiff did not raise any substantive arguments in his Notice of Appeal,
this Court does not construe Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal as an Objection to the
Recommendation.

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. 59) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

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

(3)

The above-captioned matter is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Each party shall pay his or its own attorney’s fees and costs.
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2