1

 “[#72]” 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

 The docket reflects no Part Two of the response or other subsequent objection by plaintiff,

which response or objection would be untimely in any event.

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.

MOUNTAIN STATES LINE CONSTRUCTORS JOINT APPRENTICESHIP AND

TRAINING COMMITTEE,

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 [#72]1 filed June 6, 2012; and (2) plaintiff’s corresponding objections

stated in Part One of the Response to the Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge With Exhibits [#82] filed July 10, 2012.2

 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.

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 88 Filed 08/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
2

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

recommendation to which cognizable objections have been filed. I have considered

carefully the recommendation, objections, and applicable caselaw. 

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

laboriously detailed the plaintiff’s repeated 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 in the future. 

Plaintiff’s objections do not convince me otherwise. None of them are directly

responsive to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Instead, plaintiff has merely

reiterated and expanded on the various explanations as to why she allegedly could not

prosecute this case. Nevertheless, as the magistrate judge recognized in her

recommendation, plaintiff’s various difficulties are largely of her own making and would

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 88 Filed 08/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
3

 Plaintiff also makes various unsubstantiated accusations about the veracity of opposing counsel

and the impartiality of the magistrate judge. I credit none of these assertions.

3

have been easily rectified had she made any effort to communicate with opposing

counsel and the court prior to entry of the show cause order.3 Indeed, plaintiff admits in

her objections that she does not want to have this case tried in federal court, but would

prefer to proceed in state court. 

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 [#72] filed

June 6, 2012, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court; 

2. That plaintiff’s objections contained in Part One of the Response to the

Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge With Exhibits [#82] filed

July 10, 2012, are OVERRULED;

3. 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; 

4. That judgment SHALL ENTER on behalf of defendant Mountain States Line

Constructors Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee against plaintiff Theresa L.

Dowling on all claims for relief and causes of action; provided, that the judgment shall

be with prejudice; and

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 88 Filed 08/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
4

5. 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 August 14, 2012, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02697-REB-KMT Document 88 Filed 08/14/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4