Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SANCHEZ v. FYLES, 11-cv-02366-REB-CBS. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. Colorado Number: infdco20120802689 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jul. 31, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, Judge. This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendants Cheryl Groothuis's and Misha Strong's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim Under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) [#24] 1 filed December 29, 2011; (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#34] filed March 29, 2012; and (2) Defendants Cheryl Groothuis's and Misha Strong's Motion Requesting the District Court Adopt the
More

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, Judge.

This matter is before me on the following: (1) Defendants Cheryl Groothuis's and Misha Strong's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim Under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) [#24]1 filed December 29, 2011; (2) the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#34] filed March 29, 2012; and (2) Defendants Cheryl Groothuis's and Misha Strong's Motion Requesting the District Court Adopt the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Dated March 29, 2012 [#35] filed July 24, 2012.

No objections to the recommendation have been filed. Thus, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding no error, much less plain error, in the magistrate judge's recommended disposition of this case, I find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and adopted as an order of this court. Thus, concomitantly, I grant the motion to adopt the recommendation.

Appropriately, the magistrate judge recommends that the plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed without prejudice. This recommendation is based on the failure of the plaintiff to appear for two scheduling conferences set by the court, failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the orders of this court, failure to respond to the court's March 6, 2012, Order To Show Cause [#33], and failure to prosecute this action. The magistrate judge accurately summarizes the relevant facts and accurately summarizes and applies the relevant law.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#34] filed March 29, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on the failure of the plaintiff to appear for two scheduling conferences set by the court, failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to comply with the orders of this court, failure to respond to the court's March 6, 2012, Order To Show Cause [#33], and failure to prosecute this action;

3. That under FED. R. CIV. P. 58, judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendants, Robert Fyles, Deputy A.C.D.F., Kyle Wandersee, Nurse A.C.D.F., Kelly Volk, Nurse A.C.D.F., Cheryl Groothuis, Nurse A.C.D.F., Misha Strong, Nurse A.C.D.F., Dep. Dummar, Deputy A.C.D.F., and Dep. Gorsage, Deputy A.C.D.F., and against the plaintiff, Martin Arcadio Sanchez;

4. That defendants are AWARDED their costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1;

5. That Defendants Cheryl Groothuis's and Misha Strong's Motion Requesting the District Court Adopt the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Dated March 29, 2012 [#35] filed July 24, 2012, is GRANTED;

6. That Defendants Cheryl Groothuis's and Misha Strong's Motion To Dismiss for Failure To State a Claim Under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) [#24] filed December 29, 2011, is DENIED as moot; and

7. That this case is CLOSED.

FootNotes


1. "[#24]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
2. This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. Morales-Fernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer