Bailey v. City of Englewood et al

Filing 82

ORDER adopting Recommendation Of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 81 ). Plaintiff's Contested Motion to Amend Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62 ) is DENIED. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 7/11/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 13BcvB01715BRM-BNB
DOUGLAS BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER RE
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (ECF No. 81)
______________________________________________________________________________
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge (“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 81) to deny Plaintiff’s Contested Motion to Amend Second
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62) due to his undue delay in asserting the proposed additional
claims. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by this reference. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge advised the parties they had fourteen days after the service of a copy
of the Recommendation to serve and file written objections to the Recommendation. The time
permitted for any objections has expired and no objections to the Recommendation have been
filed.
The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motion, and relevant portions of
the Court’s file, and concludes 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
Notes (“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.”). It is therefore
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 81) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and
2. Plaintiff’s Contested Motion to Amend Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 62) is
DENIED.
DATED this 11th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2