Henley v. Verizon
Filing
19
ORDER AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED 18 Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.Denying as Moot 11 Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint; it is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/05/09.(erv, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 09-cv-01568-CMA-MEH DEBORAH L. HENLEY, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON, Defendant. ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING OCTOBER 19, 2009 RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This matter is before the Court on the sua sponte Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute, i.e., her failure to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause (Doc. # 15) and her failure to appear at the October 19, 2009 Scheduling Conference before the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation on October 19, 2009 that this case be dismissed (Recommendation at 1), and 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 ten (10) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation were filed by either party.
"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 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"). Applying this standard, I am satisfied that the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is sound and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). I agree that this case should be dismissed. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 18), filed October 19, 2009, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. # 11) is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED: November 5 , 2009 BY THE COURT: _______________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
