Robinson v. People of Colorado et al

Filing 66

ORDER Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. Order that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 63) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement (Doc. # 60) is DENIED. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED. That this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp. 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/3/2021.(swest)

Case 1:18-cv-00935-CMA-KLM Document 66 Filed 08/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3

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

Civil Action No. 18-cv-00935-CMA-KLM
DAVID WAYNE ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIKE GALLEGOS,
HANA S. RUIZ,
DAVID BRIGGS,
SGT. LUSK,
SGT. S.P. ZARNOW, and
JAIME KAFATI,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the July 9, 2021 Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 63), wherein Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix
recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or Alternatively, to Stay Pursuant to the Younger Doctrine (Doc. # 52)
and deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Pleading to Amended Complaint (Doc. # 60).
The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Case 1:18-cv-00935-CMA-KLM Document 66 Filed 08/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3

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. # 63 at 18.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Mix’s
Recommendation has been filed by any party.
“[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) (citing Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[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.”)).
After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mix, in addition to
applicable portions of the record and relevant 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, the Court ORDERS as follows:
•

the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 63)
is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court;

•

Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement (Doc. # 60) is DENIED;

•

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED;

•

this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1). See Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.. 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.

2

Case 1:18-cv-00935-CMA-KLM Document 66 Filed 08/03/21 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3

2006) (holding that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be
without prejudice);
•

the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
DATED: August 3, 2021
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3