Opinion
Civil Action 22-cv-01602-NYW-MDB
12-12-2023
RICHARD ROMERO, Plaintiff, v. F. GALLEGOS-CERVANTES, Officer #2044, and LT. ALLEN, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
Nina Y. Wang, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell issued on November 17, 2023. [Doc. 135]. Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends that (1) Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d), [Doc. 116], be granted; (2) Plaintiff Richard Romero's (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Romero”) Motion for Appointment of Counsel, [Doc. 108], be denied without prejudice; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion for Choice of Venue, [Doc. 132], be denied with prejudice. See generally [Doc. 135].
Specifically, as to Defendants' request for sanctions, Judge Dominguez Braswell determined that, in light of Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order compelling him to respond to the Defendants' discovery requests, see [Doc. 109], “it would be most appropriate to issue an order finding Plaintiff in contempt, and ordering Plaintiff to provide a written response to all of Defendant[s'] discovery requests on or before December 18, 2023.” [Id. at 10]; see also [id. at 8 (setting forth Defendants' discovery requests)].
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after its service on the Parties. [Id. at 11-12]; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). No Party has objected to the Recommendation and the time to do so has elapsed.
This Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney. Because Mr. Romero is pro se, this Court reads his filings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). But Plaintiff is still bound by the same procedural rules and substantive law as a represented party. Garret v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge's recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a [magistrate judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). 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's note to 1983 amendment. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned, and a correct application of the facts and the law.
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).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell [Doc. 135] is ADOPTED;
(2) Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(d) [Doc. 116] is GRANTED;
(3) Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO COMPLY with Defendants' discovery requests, as set forth on page 8 of the Recommendation [Doc. 135 at 8], on or before January 12, 2024;
Out of an abundance of caution, given the date of this Order, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline for responding to Defendants' discovery requests, making them now due on or before January 12, 2024.
(4) Plaintiff is specifically advised that failure to comply with this Order and deadline may result in dismissal of this action, without any further advisement by the Court;
(5) Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 108] is DENIED without prejudice;
(6) Plaintiff's Motion for Choice of Venue is DENIED with prejudice; and
(7) The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to:
Richard Romero
#P01114119
Jefferson County Detention Facility P.O. Box 16700
Golden, CO 80402-6700