Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02590-WJM-CBS
04-17-2012
JOSE VELEZ-AROCHO, Plaintiff, v. VIRTUOSO SOURCING GROUP, LLC, SARAH BILES, MICHELLE COONEY, JUDITH A. LASPADA, and DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on the March 12, 2012 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 28) that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to appear at the Preliminary Scheduling Conference held on February 8, 2012; failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court's orders; failure to respond to the court's February 13, 2012 Order to Show Cause; and failure to prosecute this action. The Magistrate Judge also noted in the Recommendation, and the Court's records indicate, that the Court served Plaintiff with a copy of the Order to Show Cause at his address of record, and there is no record of the mailing being returned as undeliverable. 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. 28, at 5-6.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party (over a more than five-week period). "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's records also indicate that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Recommendation at his address of record, and there is no record of the mailing being returned as undeliverable.
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.
Further, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $455 appellate filing and docketing fee, or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 28) is ADOPTED in its entirety;
(2) This action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
(3) Each party shall bear their own costs; and
(4) Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied.
BY THE COURT:
____________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge