Hancock v. Fagerstedt
Hancock v. Fagerstedt
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Daniel D. Domenico
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00325-DDD-NRN
KRISTOPHER HANCOCK,
Plaintiffs, v.
FAGERSTEDT, Sgt., CASTADIO, Sgt., FLATHERS, Officer, LIN- COLN, Officer, ALBURY, Nurse, LAURA, Nurse, LORNA, Nurse, CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE SERVICES, JOHN DOES 1-8, SNOW, and DOE, HSA,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is the recommendation (Doc. 45) of United States Magistrate N. Reid Neureiter that the Court dismiss this case without prejudice due to Plaintiff Kristopher Hancock’s failure to prosecute, fail- ure to appear, failure to update his address with the Clerk of Court, and failure to comply with court orders. The recommendation states that ob- jections to the recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. (Doc. 45 at 4 (citing
28 U.S.C. § 36(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).) Because the recommendation wasn’t initially served on the Plaintiff at the address he most recently provided to the Court, the Court ordered it be sent to that address on April 22, 2020. (Doc. 48.) The Court notified “Plaintiff [that he] must file his response to the Order to Show Cause and the Recommendation, if any, no later than May 7, 2020.” (Id.) Plaintiff has filed no response or objection. In the absence of a timely objection, the Court may review a magis- trate judge’s recommendation 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, 154(1985)). In this matter, the Court has re- viewed the recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes. Based on that review, the Court has concluded that the recom- mendation is a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, itis ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 45) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and the case is hereby DIS- MISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiffs’ failure to pros- ecute and failure to comply with Court orders.
DATED: May 8, 2020 BY THE COURT:
Hon. Daniel D. Domenico
Reference
- Status
- Unknown