Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Humood v. City of Aurora

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 28, 2014

ABEER HUMOOD, Plaintiff,
v.
THE CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012; WILKINSON (OFFICER #256460), an individual, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012; JASON CONDREAY, an individual, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012; PONICH (OFFICER #301367), an individual, District 2 and Police Headquarters 15001 E Alameda Parkway Aurora, CO 80012; KEN SULLIVAN, in his official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, Co 80012; DEB WALLACE, in her official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012; BERNARD CELESTIN, in his official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012; SANDRA SWEENEY, in her official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012; and DAVE WILLIAMS, in his official capacity as a member of the Civil Service Commission in the City of Aurora, City of Aurora Colorado 15151 E. Alameda Pkwy Aurora, CO 80012, Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 52)

RAYMOND P. MOORE, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the United States Magistrate Judge's Recommendation Regarding Defendants' Motions to Dismiss ("Recommendation") (ECF No. 52), recommending the following motions be granted: (1) "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims, the Civil Service Commissioners, and Claims for Exemplary Damages against the City of Aurora" (ECF No. 28); (2) Defendant Wilkinson's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 (ECF No. 31); and (3) "Motion by Defendant Ponich to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 9) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6)" (ECF No. 32). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by this reference. See 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

The Magistrate Judge advised the parties they had fourteen days after the service of a copy of the Recommendation to serve and file written objections to the Recommendation. The time permitted for any objections has expired and no objection to the Recommendation has been filed.

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.[1] See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) Advisory Committee's Notes ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate."). It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 52) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss State Law Claims, the Civil Service commissioners, and Claims for exemplary Damages against the City of Autora (ECF No. 28) is GRANTED as stated in the Recommendation.
3. Officer Douglas WSilkinson's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgement Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.56 (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED as stated in the Recommendation.
4. Motion by Defendant Ponich to Dismiss Complaint (Doc. 9) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1) and (6) (ECF No. 32) is GRANTED as stated in the Recommendation; and
5. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiff may, if he elects to do so, file a Second Amended Complaint within fifteen(15) days of the date of this Order.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.