Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00692-RM-CBS
07-02-2013
WANDA LEILANI NOOR, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HICKENLOOPER, a Governor of Colorado, JOHN SUTHERS, a Colorado Attorney General, NYLE BOYD, a Colorado Trustee, OTHER PUBLIC SERVANTS, STATE EMPLOYEES, STATE ACTORS, and HUMANS, Defendants.
Judge Raymond P. Moore
ORDER ADOPTING
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the May 7, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 22) that the above-captioned civil action be dismissed without prejudice. 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. 22 at 4.) No objections to the Recommendation have to date been filed. Plaintiff Wanda Leilani Noor ("Plaintiff") has filed several documents with the Court since the Recommendation was issued (ECF Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29), but none of these documents include objections to any of Magistrate Judge Shaffer's findings or conclusions. ECF No. 23 is entitled a "Declaration of Wrongs," and though it includes portions of the Recommendation, apparently as exhibits, it does not list any objections to the Recommendation and, like Plaintiff's other filings discussed herein, it is incomprehensible to this Court. ECF Nos. 24, 27 and 28 do not contain any references to the Recommendation. ECF Nos. 25 and 26 appear to be identical, and while these documents contain a litany of vague assertions regarding the "sovereign rights of this aggrieved woman," the closest thing to an objection to the Recommendation is the following isolated sentence: "I, Wanda Leilani Noor, OBJECT; the Judge/Magistrate is in my home." (ECF No. 25 at 1, 2.) This curious statement is left unsupported, and this Court does not understand this assertion to constitute a valid objection to the Recommendation. ECF No. 29 is entitled "Verified Notice of Default and Stipulation," and though this lengthy document contains vague accusations, unsupported by allegations of fact, that Magistrate Judge Shaffer amongst other court officers, "is a wrong doer," such statements cannot be read as substantive objections that would necessitate de novo review. (Id. at 2.) In any case, this pleading (as well as some of the previously discussed documents) was filed outside of the fourteen day window for objecting and is dismissed as untimely.
The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error of law or abuse of discretion. 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. 22) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
BY THE COURT:
_________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge