Trujillo v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING 11 RECOMMENDAITON OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Defendant's 6 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff's failure to timely exhaust his administrative remedies. By Judge William J. Martinez on 2/20/2015.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 14-cv-3246-WJM-NYW
BOB TRUJILLO,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER ADOPTING FEBRUARY 3, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the February 3, 2015 Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 11)
that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) 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.
11 at 4 n.2.) 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. 11) is ADOPTED in its
entirety;

(2)

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED; and

(3)

This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to Plaintiff’s failure
to timely exhaust his administrative remedies.
Dated this 20th day of February, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

_________________________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge

2