From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutton v. Racine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Apr 6, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02713-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02713-WJM-MEH

04-06-2012

JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. SGT. RACINE, DEPUTY JESSE VARGAS, and DEPUTY JASON JAPHET Defendants.


Judge William J. Martínez


ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on the March 8, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the "Recommendation") that this action be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with multiple Court orders. (ECF No. 36.) The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) be denied as moot. (ECF No. 36.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 36 at 1 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party. "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 concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

1. The March 8, 2012 Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is ADOPTED;
2. The above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders;
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is DENIED as moot; and
4. The Clerk shall enter Judgment.

BY THE COURT:

_____________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Sutton v. Racine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Apr 6, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02713-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2012)
Case details for

Sutton v. Racine

Case Details

Full title:JOSHUA LAMONT SUTTON, Plaintiff, v. SGT. RACINE, DEPUTY JESSE VARGAS, and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 6, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02713-WJM-MEH (D. Colo. Apr. 6, 2012)