IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH

CHERYL ARABALO,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DENVER, COUNTY OF DENVER, through its elected officials, the Denver City

Council,

ASHLEY KILROY, in his official capacity as Acting Safety Manager for the City and County of

Denver, and

CAPTAIN GUTIERREZ,

Defendants.

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII Claims

against Defendant Ashley Kilroy, Plaintiff’s State Law Claims Against Defendants Ashley Kilroy

and City and County of Denver and Plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims Against Defendant Ashley

Kilroy [filed March 27, 2012; docket #50]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and D.C. Colo.

LCivR 72.1C, the motion has been referred to this Court for recommendation. (Docket #57.)

Plaintiff filed a response to the motion on April 16, 2012, indicating that she has no objection to the

dismissal of Plaintiff’s Title VII, state and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Defendant Ashley

Kilroy, and that she has no objection to the dismissal of the state law claims against Defendant City

and County of Denver. (Docket #53.) 

In light of Plaintiff’s agreement with the dismissal requested in Defendant’s Motion and

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendants’

Renewed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Title VII Claims against Defendant Ashley Kilroy, Plaintiff’s

Case 1:11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH Document 59 Filed 05/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
1

Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file

any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is

assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings

or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider

frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to

proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo

determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States

v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file

written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after

being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the

Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,

155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991); Niehaus v. Kansas Bar

Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 1164 (10th Cir. 1986).

2

State Law Claims Against Defendants Ashley Kilroy and City and County of Denver and Plaintiff’s

42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claims Against Defendant Ashley Kilroy [filed March 27, 2012; docket #50] be

granted.

1

 

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 9th day of May, 2012. 

BY THE COURT:

 

Michael E. Hegarty 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02343-MSK-MEH Document 59 Filed 05/09/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2