Opinion
Civil Action 21-cv-02306-RM-KLM
02-17-2023
ROBERT-LAWRENCE PERRY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF COLORADO, CITY OF FORT COLLINS, CSU BOARD OF GOVERNORS, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, STEVEN VASCONCELLOS, Judicial Administrator, and, DOE AGENTS, Defendants.
ORDER
Raymond P. Moore Judge
Before the Court is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix (ECF No. 73) to dismiss Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado State University from this lawsuit. The Recommendation advised that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. More than fourteen days have elapsed since the Recommendation was issued, and no objection has been filed. 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).
“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).
As outlined in the Recommendation, upon the Court's acceptance of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado State University failed to answer or otherwise respond, despite being represented by counsel. The magistrate judge issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 63), directing these Defendants to show cause why the Court should not direct Plaintiff to seek entry of default and default judgment against them. After these Defendants filed a Response (ECF No. 66), the magistrate judge determined that “it is now clear that Plaintiff did not intend to assert claims against Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado State University” (ECF No. 73 at 3). Accordingly, the magistrate judge discharged the Order to Show Cause and issued the Recommendation.
As noted above, Plaintiff has not responded to the Recommendation, and the fourteen-day deadline to do so has expired.
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's analysis of the issues presented. 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).
Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 73) and DISMISSES the claims against Defendants State of Colorado and Colorado State University.