Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-02362-RM-MEH
05-24-2022
MELEAHA R. GLAPION-PRESSLEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, DENVER DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and CAREER SERVICE HEARING OFFICE AND BOARD Defendants.
ORDER
RAYMOND P. MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (ECF No. 25) to grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and to dismiss this case with prejudice. For the reasons below, the Court accepts the Recommendation, which is incorporated into this Order by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
As set forth in greater detail in the Recommendation, in October 2019, Plaintiff previously filed a lawsuit substantially similar to this one against the City and County of Denver, Department of Human Services. See Glapion-Pressley v. City & Cnty. of Denver, No. 19-cv-02806-RM-MEH, 2020 WL 7130094 (D. Colo. Sept. 9, 2020). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of the claims in that case. See Glapion-Pressley v. City& Cnty. of Denver, No. 21-1223, 2022 WL 1112965 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2022) (unpublished).
In this second federal lawsuit, the magistrate judge determined that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. In the alternative, the magistrate judge recommends abstaining from exercising jurisdiction in this case in light of Plaintiff's ongoing proceedings in the Denver District Court. Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, the Court liberally construes her pleadings. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. That deadline passed without a response from any party. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.3d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991).
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis of the issues presented in Defendants' Motion. See Gallegos v. Smith, 401 F.Supp.3d 1352, 1356-57 (D.N.M. 2019) (applying deferential review of the magistrate judge's work in the absence of any objection).
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 25) and GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11). The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.