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.

Riley v. United States

United States District Court, District of Colorado

May 15, 2015

JAMES A. RILEY, Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING APRIL 8, 2015 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the April 8, 2015 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 43) that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) be granted. 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. 43 at 3 n.1.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation have to date been received. The Court notes that Judge Wang’s Recommendation stated that, at the time it was issued, the record contained no indication that Plaintiff was not receiving the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 43 at 3). However, since the Recommendation was issued, mail sent to the Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 47 & 48). Nevertheless, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule, D.C. COLO. LAttyR 5(c), it is the obligation of a party, represented or unrepresented, to file a “Notice of change of . . . mailing address . . . no later than five days after the change.” The record is void of any update provided from Plaintiff as to his current contact information.

The Court therefore 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 (“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.”).

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 43) is ADOPTED in its entirety;

(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 36) is GRANTED; and

(3) Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is hereby DISMISSED for failure to prosecute.


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.