Morris v. Cozza-Rhodes, 15-cv-01877-RM-KLM. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20160505955
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 04, 2016
Latest Update: May 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the April 4, 2016 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 35) to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules and to prosecute this lawsuit. 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
Summary: ORDER RAYMOND P. MOORE , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the April 4, 2016 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 35) to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules and to prosecute this lawsuit. 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 w..
More
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the April 4, 2016 Order and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 35) to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Rules and to prosecute this lawsuit. 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 days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 35 at 4-5.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed by any party and the time to do so has expired.1 (See generally Dkt.)
The Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Mix's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record.2 See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). The Recommendation is, therefore, adopted as an order of this Court.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court:
(1) ADOPTS the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 35) in its entirety;
(2) DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint;
(3) DENIES all pending matters as MOOT (ECF Nos. 24 and 29); and
(4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
FootNotes
1. The Court recognizes that the Recommendation was returned as undeliverable, but that is due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(c). That Local Rule required Plaintiff to notify the court of any change in his mailing address no later than five days after the change.
2. The Recommendation inadvertently referred to D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5.1(c) rather that 5(c), but the Order to Show Cause properly referred to 5(c). This inadvertence did not affect the propriety of the Magistrate Judge's analysis.
Source: Leagle
