Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-D-1833 (BNB)
July 14, 2003
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
By minute order dated May 14, 2003, this case was set for a preliminary scheduling conference to be held on June 24, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. Defendants' counsel appeared at that time, but the plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, neither appeared nor contacted the court. Consequently, on June 24, 2003, I entered an order commanding the plaintiff to show cause, on or before July 8, 2003, why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the order of court setting the preliminary scheduling conference. The plaintiff has not responded to the order to show cause.
Local rule of practice 41.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR, provides:
A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any court order. If good cause is not shown within the time set in the show cause order, a district judge or a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.
In view of the plaintiff's failure to prosecute this case, failure to comply with my order setting the case for a preliminary scheduling conference, and failure to respond to the order to show cause, I respectfully RECOMMEND that the case be dismissed, without prejudice.
FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties have 10 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific, written objections. A party's failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the district judge, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985), and also waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.Makin v. Colorado Dept. of Corrections, 183 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 1999); Talley v. Hesse, 91 F.3d 1411, 1412-13 (10th Cir. 1996). A party's objections to this recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or for appellate review. United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996).