IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge William J. Martínez 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02590-WJM-CBS

JOSE VELEZ-AROCHO,

Plaintiff,

v.

VIRTUOSO SOURCING GROUP, LLC,

SARAH BILES,

MICHELLE COONEY,

JUDITH A. LASPADA, and

DOES 1-100, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AND DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This matter is before the Court on the March 12, 2012 Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the “Recommendation”) (ECF No. 28)

that this action be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the

Preliminary Scheduling Conference held on February 8, 2012; failure to comply with the

Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court’s orders; failure to respond to the

court’s February 13, 2012 Order to Show Cause; and failure to prosecute this action. 

The Magistrate Judge also noted in the Recommendation, and the Court’s records

indicate, that the Court served Plaintiff with a copy of the Order to Show Cause at his

address of record, and there is no record of the mailing being returned as undeliverable. 

The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. §

Case 1:11-cv-02590-WJM-CBS Document 29 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
1

 The Court’s records also indicate that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the

Recommendation at his address of record, and there is no record of the mailing being returned

as undeliverable.

2

636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were

due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF

No. 28, at 5-6.)1

 Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation have to date been filed by either party (over a more than five-week

period). “In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s

report 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 (1985) (stating that “[i]t

does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s

factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party

objects to those findings”)).

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis was thorough and

sound, and that “there is no clear error on the face of the record.” See Fed. R. Civ. P.

72(b) advisory committee’s note.

Further, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status

will be denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438

(1962). If Plaintiff files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $455 appellate filing

and docketing fee, or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.

Case 1:11-cv-02590-WJM-CBS Document 29 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows:

(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (ECF No. 28) is ADOPTED in its

entirety; 

(2) This action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

(3) Each party shall bear their own costs; and

(4) Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. 

Dated this 17th day of April, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

 

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02590-WJM-CBS Document 29 Filed 04/16/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3