Vasquez v. Capinelli et al

Filing 76

ORDER Affirming the 75 February 19, 2019 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge and Granting Certain Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Defendants Dumiye and Anding's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 39 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Dumiy e and Anding are dismissed as defendants from this action. Defendant Shuder's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 54 ) is GRANTED. Defendant Shuder is dismissed as a defendant from this action. Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or befo re 3/26/2019, as to why the claims against Defendants Capinelli, John Doe # 1, and John Doe # 2 should not be dismissed and this action should not be terminated. If Plaintiff does not show cause, in writing, on or before 3/26/2019, this action shall be terminated in its entirety. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 03/12/2019. (athom, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 17-cv-02435-CMA-SKC
JOSE LUIS VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPINELLI,
D. RUFINA,
T. ANDING,
SHUDER,
JOHN DOE #1, and
JOHN DOE #2,

Defendants.

ORDER AFFIRMING THE FEBRUARY 19, 2019 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND GRANTING CERTAIN DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
______________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews (Doc. # 75), wherein he recommends that this Court
grant Defendants Rufina Dumiye and Tamantha Anding’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 39)
and Defendant Samuel Shuder’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 54) pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 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 (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation.

(Doc. # 75 at 12–13.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation
have been filed. “[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to
the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection,
the district court may review a magistrate [judge’s] report under any standard it deems
appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Crews and all relevant
pleadings and legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound
and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 75) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Dumiye and Anding’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 39) is GRANTED. Defendant Dumiye and Anding are dismissed as defendants
from this action. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Shuder’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 54) is
GRANTED. Defendant Shuder is dismissed as a defendant from this action.
The Court notes that this case was filed in October of 2017, see (Doc. # 1), yet
Plaintiff has failed to serve process on Defendants Capinelli, John Doe # 1, and John
Doe # 2. It is thus FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE, in writing,
on or before March 26, 2019, as to why the claims against Defendants Capinelli, John
Doe # 1, and John Doe # 2 should not be dismissed and this action should not be

2

terminated. If Plaintiff does not show cause, in writing, on or before March 26, 2019,
this action shall be terminated in its entirety.

DATED: March 12, 2019
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3