Falls v. City of Aurora et al

Filing 49

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGES RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE re: 48 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Civil Case Terminated. by Judge Daniel D. Domenico on 3/31/21. (pglov)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Daniel D. Domenico
Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-03722-DDD-STV
JEHRONE D. FALLS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF AURORA;
DUSTIN PETERSON;
ZACHARY PLOCH;
JEREMY McELROY;
CHRISTOPHER C. ELLIS;
JASON ROSENBLATT;
JONAS A. SPITZER; and
UNKNOWN POLICE OFFICERS,
Defendants.
ORDER
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
AND DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Before the Court is the recommendation (Doc. 48) of United States
Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s
claims in this case for failure to prosecute. The recommendation states
that objections to the recommendation must be filed within fourteen
days after its service on the parties. (Doc. 48 at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)).) The recommendation was served
on October 26, 2020, and no party has objected to it.
In the absence of a timely objection, the Court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation 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, 154 (1985)). In this matter, the Court has
-1-

reviewed the recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee
Notes. Based on that review, the Court has concluded that the recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. As Judge
Varholak determined, Plaintiff has failed to take any action to prosecute
his claims since June 2020, and the relevant factors weigh in favor of
dismissal.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
The Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
(Doc. 48) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED;
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
DATED: March 31, 2021

BY THE COURT:

Hon. Daniel D. Domenico

-2-