Sanchez v. Booth et al

Filing 25

ORDER adopting 24 Report and Recommendations, granting 16 Defendant Werth's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and dismissing 8 Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in its entirety. Entered by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/28/2015. (cpear)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02113-RM-KMT
FELIBERTO SANCHEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER WERTH,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the September 3, 2015, Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 24) to grant
“Defendant Werth’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 8)” (the “Motion”)
(ECF No. 16). Plaintiff filed no response to Defendant Werth’s Motion, challenging the matters
raised therein. 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. 24 at pages 6-7.)
Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any
party and the time to do so has expired. (See generally Dkt.)

The Court concludes that Magistrate 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 as an order of this Court.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
(1)

That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 24) is ADOPTED
in its entirety;

(2)

That Defendant Werth’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) (ECF
No. 16) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed in its entirety;
and

(3)

That the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant Werth
and against Plaintiff Sanchez.
DATED this 28th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

2