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-02695-REB-KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

IBEW LOCAL #111,

Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

The matters before me are (1) the Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge [#22]1

 filed April 18, 2012; (2) the objections contained in plaintiff’s

Notice Directed to the District Court Judge [#23] filed April 19, 2012; and (3) the

objections contained in plaintiff’s (Potentially) Response to Report and

Recommendations [#46] filed May 15, 2012. I overrule the objections, adopt the

recommendation, and dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiff’s

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the duly issued orders of the court.

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

recommendation to which objections have been filed. I have considered carefully the

recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. 

Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 56 Filed 06/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed her 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)). 

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

objections are imponderous and without merit. Thus, 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 of United States Magistrate Judge [#22] filed

April 18, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 

2. That the objections contained in plaintiff’s Notice Directed to the District

Court Judge [#23] filed April 19, 2012, are OVERRULED; 

3. That the objections contained in plaintiff’s (Potentially) Response to Report

and Recommendations [#46] filed May 15, 2012, are OVERRULED;

4. That defendant’s Motion To Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for a More

Definite Statement [#14] filed January 3, 2012, is DENIED AS MOOT;

5. That plaintiff’s claims in this lawsuit are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a

sanction for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the duly issued

orders of the court; 

Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 56 Filed 06/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

6. That judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant IBEW Local #111

against plaintiff Theresa L. Dowling on all claims for relief and causes of action;

provided, that the judgment shall be with prejudice; and

7. That defendant is AWARDED its costs to be taxed by the clerk of the court

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.

Dated June 11, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02695-REB-KMT Document 56 Filed 06/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3