Thurman et al v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker REO et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 14 Report and Recommendation, and dismissing this case without prejudice, by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 11/13/14.(dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore Civil Action No. 13-cv-03300-RM-CBS CARLOS THURMAN, and ERICKA THURMAN, Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR, BEAN & WHITAKER REO, in their corporate and individual capacities, THE LAW FIRM OF ARONOWITZ & MECKLENBURG, LLP, in their corporate, Personal and individual capacities, and CATHERINE A. HILDRETH, in her individual, Corporate and personal capacities, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter is before the Court on the April 4, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 14). Judge Shaffer recommends that this civil action be dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 5.) The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Id. at 5-6.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed. The recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). As explained in detail in the Recommendation, after filing their Complaint on December 6, 2013 (ECF No. 1), the Plaintiffs then failed to prosecute or otherwise respond to any filings, court orders, or status conferences. Plaintiffs failed to respond to Judge Shaffer’s Order to Show Cause dated March 11, 2014, failed to appear at the Status Conferences held on January 30th and March 10th, 2014, and failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to Quash Service dated December 31, 2013. Finally, they did not respond to the Recommendation recommending dismissal. Given that no objections have been filed, I have the discretion to review the Recommendation “under any standard [I] deem [ ] appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir.1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nonetheless, I review the Recommendation to “satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes. Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record, and I find the analysis to be thorough and sound. Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with Judge Shaffer that this action should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and (2) This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED this 13th day of November, 2014. BY THE COURT: ____________________________________ RAYMOND P. MOORE 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?