1

 “[#84]” 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-02697-REB-KMT

THERESA L. DOWLING,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLACK AND McDONALD/CUSTOM LIGHTING SERVICES,

Defendant.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO AND ADOPTING 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Blackburn, J.

This matter is before me on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge [#84]1

 filed August 2, 2012. I adopt the recommendation and dismiss this lawsuit

with prejudice as a sanction for the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to comply

with the duly issued orders of the court.

No objections the recommendation have been filed by the parties. Therefore, I

review the recommendation only for plain error. See Morales-Fernandez v.

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

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 85 Filed 02/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
2

no error, much less plain error, I find and conclude that the recommendation of the

magistrate judge should be approved and adopted. 

The 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. The magistrate judge

details the plaintiff’s repeated and unexcused failures to communicate with opposing

counsel, participate in the orderly development of the case, and timely respond to

orders duly issued by the court. She appropriately considered the relevant factors that

inform the decision whether to dismiss a case with prejudice as a sanction for such

habitual failures. See Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992). 

Given the history of this case, I concur with the magistrate that no sanction short of a

dismissal with prejudice will be efficacious to prevent further abuses by the plaintiff in

the future. 

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 of United States Magistrate Judge [#84] filed

August 2, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 

2. That claims of the plaintiff are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as a sanction

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 85 Filed 02/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
3

for the unexcused failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the orders of the court; 

3. That the Defendant’s Motion for Leave To File Surreply To Plaintiff’s

Unopposed Amended Response To the Order To Show Cause [#82] filed July 25,

2012, is DENIED as moot;

4. That judgment SHALL ENTER in favor of the defendant, Black and McDonald

/ Custom Lighting Services, against the plaintiff, Theresa L. Dowling, on all claims for

relief and causes of action asserted in this case; 

5. That under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), I certify that any appeal from the

recommendation [#84] and this order would not be taken in good faith and, therefore,

any appeal from the recommendation and this order may not be taken in forma

pauperis;

6. That if the plaintiff files a notice of appeal, she must pay the full $455.00

appellate filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; and

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

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

Dated February 25, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT: 

Case 1:11-cv-02696-REB-KMT Document 85 Filed 02/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3