Riggs v. AT&T

Filing 9

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/29/16.(kfinn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02005-REB-NYW
DEBRA L. RIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#8],1 filed March 30, 2016. No objections having been filed to the
recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.
Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding
no such error in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I find and conclude
that recommendation should be approved and adopted and that this case should be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

1

“[#8]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.
2

This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, I have construed her
pleadings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007);
Andrews v. Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th
Cir. 1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972)).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#8], filed
March 30, 2016, is approved and adopted as an order of this court.
2. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant are dismissed without prejudice for
failure to prosecute; and
3. That this case is closed.
Dated April 29, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2