Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-01000-RM-MEH
10-13-2021
SONIC INSPECTION CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. UTRASONIC SCANNING SERVICES LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Defendants.
ORDER
Raymond P. Moore, United States District Judge
This trademark infringement case is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty to dismiss this case due to Plaintiffs lack of representation. (ECF No. 65.) The Recommendation advised Plaintiff that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the Recommendation. The deadline for responding to the Recommendation has come and gone without a response from either party. "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). 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).
As outlined in the magistrate judge's Recommendation and reflected on the docket for this case, Plaintiff has twice had its counsel withdraw. Despite being provided ample time to make the necessary arrangements given Plaintiffs status as a corporation, it has failed to do so.
On August 30, 2021, the Court gave a final extension (until September 15, 2021) of the deadline to respond to the Order to Show Cause entered on June 14, 2021. (ECF No. 63.) On September 22, 2021, Plaintiffs sole shareholder filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and request for a stay, but Plaintiff still has not secured counsel (or responded to the Recommendati on).
The Court discerns no error on the face of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge's conclusion that dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) is appropriate. 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).
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the Recommendation (ECF No. 65), and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.