Romero v. Gallegos-Cervantes et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang
Civil Action No. 22-cv-01602-NYW-MDB
RICHARD ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
F. GALLEGOS-CERVANTES, Officer #2044, and
LT. ALLEN,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This 	matter is 	before the Court 	on 	the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell issued on November 17, 2023. 	[Doc.
135]. Judge Dominguez Braswell recommends that (1) Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d), [Doc. 116], be granted; (2) Plaintiff Richard Romero’s
(“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Romero”) Motion for Appointment of Counsel, [Doc. 108], be denied
without prejudice; and (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Choice of Venue, [Doc. 132], be denied
with prejudice. See generally [Doc. 135].
Specifically, as to Defendants’ request for sanctions, Judge Dominguez Braswell
determined that, in light of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s order compelling
him to respond to the Defendants’ discovery requests, see [Doc. 109], “it would be most
appropriate to issue an order finding Plaintiff in contempt, and ordering Plaintiff to provide
a written response to all of Defendant[s’] discovery requests on or before December 18,
2023.” [Id. at 10]; see also [id. at 8 (setting forth Defendants’ discovery requests)].
Case No. 1:22-cv-01602-NYW-MDB Document 138 filed 12/12/23 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed
within 14 days after its service on the Parties. 	[Id. at 11–12]; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). No Party has objected to the Recommendation
and the time to do so has elapsed.1
In the absence of an objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s
recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate. See Summers v. Utah, 927
F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It
does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a [magistrate
judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither
party 	objects 	to 	those 	findings.”). 	In 	this 	matter, 	the 	Court 	has 	reviewed 	the
Recommendation to satisfy itself that there is “no clear error on the face of the record.”2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. 	Based on this
review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned,
and a correct application of the facts and the law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) 	The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez
Braswell [Doc. 135] is ADOPTED;
(2) 	Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d) [Doc. 116]
1 This Court recognizes that Plaintiff is proceeding without an attorney. 	Because Mr.
Romero is pro se, this Court reads his filings liberally. 	See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520–21 (1972). 	But Plaintiff is still bound by the same procedural rules and
substantive law as a represented party. 	Garret v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425
F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
2 This standard of review is something less than a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law”
standard of review, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which in turn is less than a de novo review.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Case No. 1:22-cv-01602-NYW-MDB Document 138 filed 12/12/23 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
is GRANTED;
(3) 	Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO COMPLY with Defendants’ discovery
requests, as set forth on page 8 of the Recommendation [Doc. 135 at 8], on
or before January 12, 2024;3
(4) 	Plaintiff is specifically advised that failure to comply with this Order and
deadline may result in dismissal of this action, without any further
advisement by the Court;
(5) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel [Doc. 108] is DENIED without
prejudice;
(6) 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Choice of Venue is DENIED with prejudice; and
(7) 	The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to:
Richard Romero
#P01114119
Jefferson County Detention Facility
P.O. Box 16700
Golden, CO 80402-6700
DATED: December 12, 2023 	BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Nina Y. Wang
United States District Judge
3 Out of an abundance of caution, given the date of this Order, the Court sua sponte
extends the deadline for responding to Defendants’ discovery requests, making them now
due on or before January 12, 2024.
Case No. 1:22-cv-01602-NYW-MDB Document 138 filed 12/12/23 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3