Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1866-WJM-MJW
07-16-2014
DAVID LEE WOMACK, Plaintiff, v. DARREN FOSTER, Correctional Counselor, ADX Florence, ELEANOR ALEXANDER, Discipline Hearing Officer, North Central Regional Office, RICHARD ARKO, Senior Officer Specialist, ADX Florence, ANTHONY OSAGIE, Physician's Assistant, ADX Florence, RONALD CAMACHO, Mil-Level Provider, ADX Florence, and JOHN DOE, ADX Florence, Defendants.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER ADOPTING JUNE 18, 2014 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE,
GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court on the June 18, 2014 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 66) that the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43) filed by the five named Defendants be granted, and that the John Doe Defendant be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 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. 66 at 17.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been received.
On June 25, 2014, the Court received a letter from Plaintiff dated June 23, 2014. (ECF No. 67.) However, Plaintiff's June 23, 2014 letter made no reference to the Recommendation or the conclusions therein, and presented the same facts and arguments that were already raised in Plaintiff's previous filings. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 58, 60, 64, 65.) Accordingly, the Court cannot reasonably construe Plaintiff's June 23, 2014 letter as an objection to the Recommendation.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. 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.").
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 66) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43) is GRANTED; and (3) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 12) is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (4) Plaintiff's claim against John Doe is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for failure to prosecute; (5) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Each party shall pay his or her own attorney's fees and costs.
BY THE COURT:
__________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge