Opinion
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01094-WYD-CBS
12-20-2013
BEVERLY J. VOSS, Plaintiff, v. SILVERMAN/BORENSTEIN, PLLC; IRVIN BORENSTEIN, ESQUIRE; DAVID SILVERMAN, ESQUIRE; and, ANNE-MARIE VOSS, ESQUIRE, Defendants.
Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation [ECF No. 6]. Because the plaintiff, Beverly J. Voss, proceeds pro se, I referred this action to Magistrate Judge Shaffer. ECF No. 4. On September 25, 2013, Magistrate Judge Shaffer issued a Recommendation [ECF No. 6] stating that this action should be dismissed without prejudice for:
failure to timely serve the Defendants, failure to respond to the court's August 29, 2013 Order to Show Cause, failure to prosecute this civil action, and failure to comply with court orders, the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District Of Colorado, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.ECF No. 6, pp. 3-4. Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Rule 72(b) of the FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE, and D.C.COLO.LCivR. 72.1.
Magistrate Judge Shaffer advised the parties that they had 14 days after service of a copy of his Recommendation [ECF No. 6] to file objections to the Recommendation [ECF No. 6]. ECF No. 6, p. 4. As of Friday, December 20, 2013, no party has filed objections. Because the parties did not file objections, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation [ECF No. 6] "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation [ECF No. 6] to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Advisory Committee Notes to FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Note, this standard of review is something less than a "clearly erroneous or contrary to law" standard of review, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review, FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
Having reviewed the Recommendation [ECF No. 6], I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is thorough, well-reasoned, and sound. Further, I agree that this action should be dismissed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the matter before this Court, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff, Beverly J. Voss's, claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the following reasons: (1) failure to timely serve the defendants; (2) failure to respond to Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Order To Show Cause [ECF No. 5]; (3) failure to prosecute this action; and, (4) failure to comply with the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado and the FEDERAL RULES of CIVIL PROCEDURE.
BY THE COURT:
_______________
Wiley Y. Daniel
Senior U. S. District Judge