Opinion
23-2254-JWB-TJJ
08-09-2023
ANDREW QUINN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN W. BROOMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the court on a June 13, 2023 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's pro se complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 5.) The R&R was sent to Plaintiff by regular mail at the time of filing and informed him that he had 14 days from receipt of the R&R to file written objections to it, and that if he did not timely file any objections, no court would allow appellate review of the recommended disposition. (Id. at 4.) Almost two months have passed since the R&R was sent to Plaintiff and no objections to the R&R have been filed.
Plaintiff's failure to timely object to any portion of the R&R leaves him with no entitlement to appellate review. Williams v. United States, No. 19-2476-JAR-JPO, 2019 WL 6167514, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 20, 2019) (“The Tenth Circuit requires that objections to a magistrate judge's recommended disposition ‘be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court ...”) (quoting United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996)). “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report 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 (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.”)).
The court agrees with Judge James' analysis concluding that the complaint fails to state a valid claim upon which relief can be granted. The court finds no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee 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.”) The court accordingly adopts the recommendation in the R&R to dismiss the complaint.
Conclusion
The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R (Doc. 5) as the findings and conclusions of this court. Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2023.