Sergent v. Ulrich

Full title: THOMAS JULIUS SERGENT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ULRICH, and BILLIE CLARK…

Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Jan 6, 2022

Civil Action 21-cv-00556-CMA-NRN (D. Colo. Jan. 6, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 21-cv-00556-CMA-NRN

01-06-2022

THOMAS JULIUS SERGENT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ULRICH, and BILLIE CLARK, Defendants.

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge

ORDER ON RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter. (Doc. # 44). Judge Neureiter recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 21) be granted, that Plaintiff's state-law claims be dismissed with prejudice, and that Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim be dismissed without prejudice. The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons.

“[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge'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 1 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 Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after service of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 44, p. 13). Neither party filed a timely objection.

Having reviewed the Recommendation, the relevant portions of the record, and the relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter (Doc. # 44) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 21) is GRANTED as follows:

• Plaintiff's state law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

• Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until January 26, 2022, to file an amended complaint curing the defects in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. If Plaintiff fails to do so, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. 2