Bingaman v. Torez

Full title: JAY BINGAMAN, Plaintiff, v. GARY TOR[R]EZ, JOHN PRATT, and DON SIMONEAUX…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 3, 2013

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0400-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. Jan. 3, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-0400-WJM-CBS

01-03-2013

JAY BINGAMAN, Plaintiff, v. GARY TOR[R]EZ, JOHN PRATT, and DON SIMONEAUX Defendants.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER ADOPTING NOVEMBER 5, 2012 RECOMMENDATION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT, AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

This matter is before the Court on the November 5, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 26) that Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 21) be denied, and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) be granted. 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. 26, at 15-16.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party.

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. 26) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 21) is DENIED; and (3) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED. Any claim against Defendants in their official capacities is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All other claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim to which relief can be granted. (4) Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge