1

 “[#38]” 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.

2

 This standard pertains even though plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter. MoralesFernandez, 418 F.3d at 1122. In addition, 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)). 

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.,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is the magistrate judge’s Recommendation on

Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 10), Plaintiff’s Motion

Requesting an Immediate Injunction (Docket No. 61), and Defendant 7-Eleven’s

Motion To Dismiss or for Other Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Refusal To Participate in

Discovery (Docket No. 75) [#83],1

 filed August 8, 2012. No objections having been

filed to the recommendation, I review it only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.

Immigration & Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005).2 Finding

no such error in the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I find and conclude

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 89 Filed 09/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

that recommendation should be approved and adopted. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Recommendation on Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To

Dismiss (Docket No. 10), Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting an Immediate Injunction

(Docket No. 61), and Defendant 7-Eleven’s Motion To Dismiss or for Other

Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Refusal To Participate in Discovery [#83], filed August 8,

2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 

2. That Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss [#10], filed October 18,

2011, is GRANTED insofar as it asserts that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the

applicable statutes of limitation;

3. That Plaintiff’s Motion for the “Judicial Notice” of Judge Robert E.

Blackburn on the Federal Anti-Retaliatory Provision Which is the Gist of this

Lawsuit . . . [#61], filed June 20, 2012, is DENIED AS MOOT;

4. That Defendant 7-Eleven’s Motion To Dismiss or for Other Sanctions for

Plaintiff’s Refusal To Participate in Discovery [#75], filed June 28, 2012, is DENIED

AS MOOT;

5. That plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 

6. That the Trial Preparation Conference set for December 7, 2012, is

VACATED;

7. That the trial to the court set to commence December 10, 2012, is VACATED;

8. That any pending motion is DENIED as moot; and

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 89 Filed 09/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

9. That judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant, 7-Eleven, Inc., and

against plaintiff, Alemayehu Getachew, as to all claims and causes of action asserted

herein; provided, that the judgment shall be with prejudice;

Dated September 24, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02421-REB-MJW Document 89 Filed 09/24/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3