From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hancock v. Fagerstedt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 8, 2020
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00325-DDD-NRN (D. Colo. May. 8, 2020)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 19-cv-00325-DDD-NRN

05-08-2020

KRISTOPHER HANCOCK, Plaintiffs, v. FAGERSTEDT, Sgt., CASTADIO, Sgt., FLATHERS, Officer, LINCOLN, Officer, ALBURY, Nurse, LAURA, Nurse, LORNA, Nurse, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, JOHN DOES 1-8, SNOW, and DOE, HSA, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the recommendation (Doc. 45) of United States Magistrate N. Reid Neureiter that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice due to Plaintiff Kristopher Hancock's failure to prosecute, failure to appear, failure to update his address with the Clerk of Court, and failure to comply with court orders. The recommendation states that objections to the recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. (Doc. 45 at 4 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 36(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).) Because the recommendation wasn't initially served on the Plaintiff at the address he most recently provided to the Court, the Court ordered it be sent to that address on April 22, 2020. (Doc. 48.) The Court notified "Plaintiff [that he] must file his response to the Order to Show Cause and the Recommendation, if any, no later than May 7, 2020." (Id.) Plaintiff has filed no response or objection.

In the absence of a timely objection, the Court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 154 (1985)). In this matter, the Court has reviewed the recommendation to satisfy itself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes. Based on that review, the Court has concluded that the recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and the case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs' failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. DATED: May 8, 2020

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

Hon. Daniel D. Domenico


Summaries of

Hancock v. Fagerstedt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 8, 2020
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00325-DDD-NRN (D. Colo. May. 8, 2020)
Case details for

Hancock v. Fagerstedt

Case Details

Full title:KRISTOPHER HANCOCK, Plaintiffs, v. FAGERSTEDT, Sgt., CASTADIO, Sgt.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 8, 2020

Citations

Civil Action No. 19-cv-00325-DDD-NRN (D. Colo. May. 8, 2020)