ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.

The matters before me are (1) the magistrate judge's Recommendation on Aurora Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Officer Hawkins (Docket No. 27) and Aurora Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted (Docket No. 38) [#53],1 filed April 8, 2014; and (2) plaintiff's Objection to Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted 12(b)(6) [#54], filed April 23, 2014, which I construe as an objection to the recommendation.2 Thus construed, I overrule the objection, adopt the recommendation, and grant the apposite motions to dismiss.

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed his 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)).

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw.

Nevertheless, plaintiff has failed to state cognizable claims against either of the two remaining defendants in this lawsuit. As the magistrate judge noted, plaintiff's suit against Officer Hawkins, who is expressly sued only in his official capacity, is essentially a suit against the City of Aurora. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Therefore, Officer Hawkins is properly dismissed as a party defendant to this lawsuit.

Moreover, with respect to plaintiff's claims against the City, the complaint fails to allege an unconstitutional custom or policy that might subject the City to liability for the alleged actions of Officer Hawkins. Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037-38, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Although plaintiff objects that the complaint "details illegal customs and policies of a local decisionmaker," he fails to specify how this essential element of his section 1983 claim against the City is adequately alleged.3

I thus find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited, and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That magistrate judge's Recommendation on Aurora Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Officer Hawkins (Docket No. 27) and Aurora Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6) for Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted (Docket No. 38) [#53], filed April 8, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That the objections stated in plaintiff's Objection to Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted 12(b)(6) [#54], filed April 23, 2014, construed as an objection to the recommendation, are OVERRULED;

3. That the Aurora Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Officer Hawkins and To Recaption Case [#27], filed January 8, 2014, is GRANTED;

4. That the Aurora Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b0(6) for Failure To State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted [#38], filed February 18, 2014, is GRANTED;

5. That plaintiff's claims against defendant, Officer Hawkins #49252 (official capacity suit), are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

6. That plaintiff's claims against defendant, the City of Aurora, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;

7. That judgment SHALL ENTER as follows:

8. That this case is CLOSED.