IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-03154-RM-NYW

MARQUISE K. LEWIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O ERIKSON, C/O VIGIL, JOHN DOE, and JOHN DOE,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

This matter is before the Court on the December 13, 2019, recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang (ECF No. 76) to grant Defendants’ renewed motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 74) and to dismiss the case as a sanction for Plaintiff’s repeated failure to respond to discovery requests. The Court accepts the recommendation, and it is incorporated herein by reference, see

(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit in December 2017, alleging that Defendants allowed other inmates to attack him. The Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims except for an Eight Amendment claim after Plaintiff did not object to a previous recommendation by the magistrate judge. As recounted in the current recommendation, Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests, was ordered to do so and warned that a failure to comply could result in dismissal of his remaining claim, and still failed to respond after the deadline was extended. Defendants filed a renewed motion to compel in November 2019, which was referred to the magistrate judge. Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. The magistrate judge considered the history of the case and whether dismissal was an appropriate sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 based on the factors set forth in Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds,

(10th Cir. 1992). The magistrate judge determined that each of the Ehrenhaus factors favors dismissal and recommended dismissal of this matter. The recommendation advised Plaintiff that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served a copy of the recommendation. Plaintiff did not object, and the time to do so has expired. “In the absence of a timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah,

(10th Cir. 1991). The Court concludes the magistrate judge’s analysis was thorough and sound and discerns no clear error on the face of the record. Due to the history of this case, and, in particular, Plaintiff's failure to respond to either the renewed motion to compel or the recommendation, the Court agrees that dismissal 1s appropriate. Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the recommendation (ECF No. 76) and GRANTS the renewed motion to compel (ECF No. 74). The case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to CLOSE it. DATED this 22nd day of January, 2020. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge