Celestine v. State of Colorado et al
Filing
32
ORDER adopting 29 Report and Recommendation; this action is DISMISSED. by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/19/15.(jdyne, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 14-cv-03058-LTB-KLM
DEWAYNE CELESTINE, individually and on behalf of any other similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF COLORADO,
RICK RAEMISCH, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for CDOC,
ROGER WERHOLTZ, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for
CDOC,
TONY CAROCHI, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for CDOC,
TOM CLEMENTS, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for CDOC,
by and through his estate,
ARISTEDES ZAVARIS, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for
CDOC,
JOE ORTIZ, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for CDOC, and
JOHN SUTHERS, in his individual and official capacity as Executive Director for CDOC,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
This case is before me on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge issued and
served on May 1, 2015 (Doc 29). Plaintiff was mailed a copy of the referenced Order and
Recommendation on May 1, 2015. Said Order and Recommendation was returned to the
Court with a label stating “Return to Sender - Refused - Unable to Forward - Return to
Sender” (Doc 31 - filed May 12, 2015). Plaintiff has failed to file specific written objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and is therefore barred from de novo review.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the recommendation is accepted and this action is DISMISSED.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
DATED: May 19, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?