Bristol v. El Paso County Sheriff Dep. et al

Filing 65

ORDER adopting 64 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge and denying as moot 60 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. This matter is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 6/30/2015. (cpear)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14-CV-00012-RM-KLM
TOMMY WAYNE BRISTOL,
Plaintiff,
v.
EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.,
C. MOTT, Deputy,
N. NUNCIO, Deputy,
DORSEY, Deputy,
HOLLOWAY, Deputy,
HARE, Deputy,
ELMANTE, Deputy,
JEFFERSON, Deputy,
SORY, Deputy,
GOODLOW, Deputy,
SIRDIS, Deputy,
JOHNSON, Specialist,
SEETER, Deputy, and
HABERT, Sergeant, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix’s Recommendation
(“Recommendation”) (ECF No. 64) that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case with prejudice
pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court incorporates the
Recommendation 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. 64 at 6-7.)

Despite this advisement, to date, no party has filed objections to the Recommendation and the
time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)
The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Mix’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 [a] timely objection,
the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.”).
The Court, therefore, adopts the Magistrate Judge’s order in its entirety as its order.1

1

Plaintiff’s address as listed in the original complaint is: Tommy Wayne Bristol, A0285461, Criminal Justice
Center, 2738 E. Las Vegas St., Colorado Springs, CO, 80906-1522. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Plaintiff’s address as listed in
the amended complaint is: Tommy Wayne Bristol, A0285461, C.J.C., 2739 E. Las Vegas St., Co. Springs, CO
80906-1522. (ECF No. 36 at 2.) The certificate of service attached to Defendants’ motion to dismiss states that
Defendants mailed it to: Tommy Wayne Bristol, A0285461, El Paso County Criminal Justice Center, 2739 E. Las
Vegas Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80906. (ECF No. 60 at 11.) The notice of electronic filing attached to
Defendants’ motion to dismiss states that notice has been mailed to: Tommy Wayne Bristol, #166542, Centennial
Correctional Facility (CCF), P.O. Box 777, Canon City, CO 81215. (ECF No. 60.) On December 16, 2014, the
Court received notice that mail was returned as undeliverable to: Tommy Wayne Bristol, A0285461, El Paso
County Criminal Justice Center, 2739 East Las Vegas Street, Colorado Springs, CO 80906. (ECF No. 46.) Both the
order to show cause (ECF No. 63) and the Recommendation (ECF No. 64) were mailed to: Tommy Wayne Bristol,
#166542, Centennial Correctional Facility (CCF), P.O. Box 777, Canon City, CO 81215. The Court’s docket for
this matter does not indicate that Plaintiff did not receive Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 60), the Court’s
order to show cause (ECF No. 63), or the Recommendation (ECF No. 64). (See generally Dkt.) Absent some
evidence that Plaintiff has not received Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 60), the Court’s order to show
cause (ECF No. 63), or the Recommendation (ECF No. 64), the Court presumes Plaintiff received each of the
documents in question.

2

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1)

ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 64) to dismiss with

prejudice this matter in its entirety pursuant Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
and
(2)

DENIES as MOOT Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 60).

DATED this 30th day of June, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

3