Jonathan Valentine v. United States

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00649-CNS-SBP JONATHAN VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Susan B. Prose issued on February 3, 2026, recommending that Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that Plaintiff’s pending summary judgment motions be denied as moot. See ECF No. 61. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.

I. Summary for Pro Se Plaintiff The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss your case and denying the two summary judgment motions that you filed. You were given two weeks to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Because you did not do so, the Court has reviewed the recommendation itself, and affirms and adopts the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned recommendation.

II. ANALYSIS The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Prose’s Recommendation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to consider dispositive motions and submit recommendations to the Court. When a magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file such written objections may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). When this occurs, the Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).

After reviewing all the relevant pleadings and filings, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Prose’s analyses were thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Prose’s Recommendation as an order of this Court. ECF No. 61. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 33, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court further AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Prose’ Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, ECF Nos. 26 and 47, be DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED this 26th day of February 2026.

BY DP URT: f Hf Ckefflotte rewgeney United Sta istrict Jyedge