Daniel v. Steiner

Filing 62

ORDER affirming and adopting 61 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Wang. Granting 51 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendant Lieutenant Mason is dismissed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for Plaintiff's failure to pr operly serve him in compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the Court's repeated orders, and for failure to prosecute. This case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/30/2015. (ebuch)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00834-CMA-BNB
ARLUS DANIEL, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SARGENT STEINER,
SARGENT VALDEZ,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HARTLEY,
CASE MANAGER RICK BURFORD,
CASE MANAGER THOMPSON,
CASE MANAGER HARTBAUER,
SARGENT DAVE GACNIK,
LIEUTENANT KEVIN HALL,
LIEUTENANT TERRY SCAVARDA,
LIEUTENANT MASON,
LIEUTENANT RICHARDS,
MAJOR TERRY HAMILTON,
WARDEN PAMELA PLOUGH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CLEMENTS,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RICK RAEMISCH,
PAROLE OFFICER JANET RUSSELL, and
GOVERNOR JOHN HICKENLOOPER
Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 3, 2015 RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the November 3, 2015 Recommendation by
United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang that Defendants’1 Motion to Dismiss

1 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was brought by Defendants Steiner, Valdez, Hartley, Burford,

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 51) be granted and also that Defendant
Lieutenant Mason be dismissed from the action. (Doc. # 61.) 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.
(Doc. # 61 at 17, n . 3.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge
Wang’s Recommendation were filed by either party.
“In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate
[judge’s] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d
1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating
that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”)).
The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Defendants’
Motion and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that
Magistrate Judge Wang’s thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations
are correct and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72, advisory committee’s note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Wang as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge Wang (Doc. # 61) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Pursuant to that
Thompson, Hartbauer, Gacnik, Hall, Scavarda, Richards, Hamilton, Plough, Clements,
Raemisch, Russell, and Hickenlooper.

2

Recommendation, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
# 51) is GRANTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Lieutenant Mason is DISMISSED
pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve him in
compliance with Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply
with the Court’s repeated orders, and for failure to prosecute. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety.
DATED: November 30, 2015

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3