Jennings v. Lee

Filing 17

ORDER Accepting Magistrate Judge's Recommendation by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/8/15. ORDERED: The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 12 is ACCEPTED. It is further ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because plaintiff has failed to file a pleading that complies with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate [Docket No. 13] and plaintiff's Motion to Compile 16 , neither of which addresses the Recommendation, are denied as moot.(kpreu)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01248-PAB-KMT
JAMES E. JENNINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHELE K. LEE, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and
DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya filed on November 17, 2015 [Docket No. 12].
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recom mendation must be filed
within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 12 at 5. See also 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Objections to the Recommendation were due on December 4,
2015. No party has objected to the Recommendation.
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)
(“[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a
magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings”). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the

Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”1
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has
concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket
No. 12] is ACCEPTED. It is further
ORDERED that this case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b) because plaintiff has failed to file a pleading that complies with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate [Docket No. 13] and plaintif f’s
Motion to Compile [Docket No. 16], neither of which addresses the Recommendation,
are denied as moot.

DATED December 8, 2015.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

1

This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary
to law” standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo
review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
2