From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muragara v. Primesource Staffing, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Aug 15, 2006
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00655-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-cv-00655-WYD-MEH.

August 15, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION


THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed April 14, 2006. This motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Hegarty for a recommendation by Order of Reference dated April 19, 2006. A Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty was issued on July 14, 2006, and is incorporated herein by reference.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Plaintiff brings this lawsuit pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Magistrate Judge Hegarty recommends that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff has produced no evidence that he has exhausted his administrative remedies prior to bringing this lawsuit. Recommendation at 2-4.

Magistrate Judge Hegarty advised the parties that specific written objections were due within ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. Id. at 4. Despite this advisement, no objections were filed by any party to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem appropriate."Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.

Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I agree with Magistrate Judge Hegarty that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisite of exhausting administrative remedies prior to bringing suit, and that this matter should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Hegarty dated July 14, 2006, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint filed April 14, 2006 (docket #4) is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.


Summaries of

Muragara v. Primesource Staffing, LLC

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Aug 15, 2006
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00655-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2006)
Case details for

Muragara v. Primesource Staffing, LLC

Case Details

Full title:JECKONIAS N. MURAGARA, Plaintiff(s), v. PRIMESOURCE STAFFING, LLC…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Aug 15, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 06-cv-00655-WYD-MEH (D. Colo. Aug. 15, 2006)