John Doe v. May, Jr. et al

Filing 60

ORDER Adopting 59 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Granting 46 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs Complaint 1 is DISMISSED as to all Defendant, by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/10/2015.(cthom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01740-WJM-NYW
JOHN DOE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES T. MAY, JR., Special Agent in Charge, NCIS Norfolk Field Office,
BRIAN BRITTINGHAM, Supervisory Special Agent, NCIS Norfolk Field Office,
SAMANTHA MARTIN, NCIS Special Agent,
KEVIN C. PRICE, NCIS Special Agent,
JASON TUCKER, MMCM, U.S. Navy, and
JAMES NEWELL, JR., Sergeant, New York State Police.
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING NOVEMBER 16, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the November 16, 2015 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 59) that
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, for a
More Definite Statement (ECF No. 46) be granted and the Complaint be dismissed as to
all Defendants. 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.
59 at 16 n.3.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation have to date been received.

The Court 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. 59) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, for a
More Definite Statement (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED; and

(3)

Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED as to all Defendants.
Dated this 10th day of December, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2