Lawrence v. Blackman et al

Filing 33

ORDER The Magistrate Judges Recommendation ECF No. 31 is ADOPTED in its entirety; Defendants Motions to Dismiss ECF No. 24 is GRANTED; The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims. by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 12/17/2014.(evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14–cv–00344–RM–KMT
MICHAEL LAWRENCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMY BLACKMAN, individually and in her official capacity as a representative of the Denver,
Colorado Adult Probation Department,
DAVID GILL, individually and in his official capacity as a representative of the Denver,
Colorado Adult Probation Department,
FRAN JAMISON, individually and in her capacity as Chief Probation Officer of the Denver
Adult Probation Department,
THE DENVER, COLORADO ADULT PROBATION DEPARTMENT,
DARRYL F. SHOCKLEY, individually and in his official capacity as a representative of the
Denver District Attorney’s office,
MITCHELL R. MORRISSEY, individually and in his official capacity as Denver District
Attorney,
THE DENVER DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
DEBORAH HANSEN, individually and in her official capacity as Police Officer for the City of
Apex, North Carolina,
JOHN W. LETTENEY, individually and in his capacity as Apex, North Carolina Chief of Police,
THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF APEX, NORTH CAROLINA,
C. COLON WILLOUGHBY, individually and in his official capacity as the Wake County, North
Carolina District Attorney,
THE WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
JOHN DOE #1, individually and in his official capacity as a representative of the Wake County,
North Carolina District Attorney’s Office,
JOHN DOE #2, individually and in his official capacity as a representative of the Wake County,
North Carolina District Attorney’s Office,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the June 26, 2014 Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 31) Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Based on Qualified Immunity and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF
No. 24) 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. 31 at 16-17.)
Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by either
party.
The Court concludes that Judge Tafoya’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.”). The Recommendation is,
therefore, adopted.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 31) is ADOPTED in its entirety;

(2)

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED;

(3)

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims.
DATED this 17th day of December, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge