Opinion
Civil Case No. 06-cv-00699-LTB-BNB.
August 1, 2008
ORDER
On June 25, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued his recommendation that the above matter be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 (Doc 70). The file reflects that the recommendation mailed to the Plaintiff was returned (Doc 71). It now appears that the recommendation was served effectively by mail on July 14, 2008 (Doc 72).
Plaintiff has filed no specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. However, she filed a letter (Doc 73) on July 18, 2008, lamenting her inability to obtain counsel, stating she has legitimate issues, and does not want the case dismissed (Doc 73). I conclude that the letter does not constitute specific written objections as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) and Thomas v. ARN, 474 U.S. 140, 147-148 (1985). Because the letter is inadequate to constitute timely specific objections sufficient to preserve review of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation de novo, United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996), Plaintiff is barred from de novo review. Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.