Riley v. USA

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 43 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Defendant's 36 Motion to Dismiss is granted. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to prosecute. By Judge William J. Martinez on 5/15/2015. (alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-0878-WJM-NYW
JAMES A. RILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 8, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the April 8, 2015 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 43) that
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) 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.
43 at 3 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received. The Court notes that Judge Wang’s
Recommendation stated that, at the time it was issued, the record contained no indication
that Plaintiff was not receiving the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 43 at 3). However, since the
Recommendation was issued, mail sent to the Plaintiff has been returned as
undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 47 & 48). Nevertheless, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule,
D.C. COLO. LAttyR 5(c), it is the obligation of a party, represented or unrepresented, to

file a “Notice of change of . . . mailing address . . . no later than five days after the
change.” The record is void of any update provided from Plaintiff as to his current contact
information.
The Court therefore concludes that 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 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.”).
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 43) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED; and

(3)

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.
Dated this 15th day of May, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2