1

 “[#34]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a

specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this

convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02421-REB-MJW

ALEMAYEHU GETACHEW,

Plaintiff,

v.

7-ELEVEN, INC., and

GOOGLE,

Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation that Claims Against

Defendant Google Be Dismissed Based Upon the Plaintiff’s Failure To Servce and

Failure To Prosecute [#34]1

 filed January 30, 2012; and (2) the objections contained in

Plaintiff’s Appeal From the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation on

“Failure To Serve” Filed on January 30, 2012 to the United State [sic] District

Judge [#39] filed February 9, 2012. I overrule the objections, adopt the

recommendation, and dismiss defendant Google without prejudice for failure to

effectuate timely service.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), I have reviewed de novo all portions of the

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 45 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

recommendation to which objections have been filed, and have considered carefully the

recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. Moreover, because plaintiff is

proceeding pro se, I have construed his pleadings more liberally and held them to a less

stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus,

551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Andrews v. Heaton,

483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.

1991) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d

652 (1972)). However, I have not acted as an advocate for the plaintiff.

The recommendation is detailed and well-reasoned. Contrastingly, plaintiff’s

objections are imponderous and without merit. 

Therefore, I find and conclude that the arguments advanced, authorities cited,

and findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation proposed by the

magistrate judge should be approved and adopted.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation that Claims Against Defendant Google Be

Dismissed Based Upon the Plaintiff’s Failure To Servce and Failure To Prosecute

[#34], filed January 30, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 

2. That the objections stated in Plaintiff’s Appeal From the United States

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation on “Failure To Serve” Filed on January 30,

2012 to the United State [sic] District Judge [#39], filed February 9, 2012, are

OVERRULED; 

3. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant Google are DISMISSED WITHOUT

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 45 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

PREJUDICE for failure to effect timely service of process as required by Fed.R.Civ.P.

4(m); and

4. That defendant Google is DROPPED as a named party to this action, and the

case caption AMENDED accordingly.

Dated March 14, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 45 Filed 03/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3