Valentine v. United States, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00649-CNS-SBP
JONATHAN VALENTINE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate
Judge Susan B. Prose issued on February 3, 2026, recommending that Defendant’s
pending Motion to Dismiss be granted, and that Plaintiff’s pending summary judgment
motions be denied as moot. See ECF No. 61. For the following reasons, the Court
AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
I. 	Summary for Pro Se Plaintiff
The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss your
case and denying the two summary judgment motions that you filed. You were given two
weeks to file an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Because you did
not do so, the Court has reviewed the recommendation itself, and affirms and adopts the
magistrate judge’s well-reasoned recommendation.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00649-CNS-SBP Document 62 filed 02/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
II. 	ANALYSIS
The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a
copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration
by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has
filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Prose’s Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to
consider 	dispositive 	motions 	and 	submit 	recommendations 	to 	the 	Court. 	When a
magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file such written objections may bar the party
from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and
recommendations. 	Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 	When this occurs, the
Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate’s report under
any standard it deems appropriate.” 	Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167
(10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings and filings, the Court concludes that
Magistrate 	Judge 	Prose’s 	analyses 	were 	thorough 	and 	comprehensive, 	the
Recommendation is well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the
record. 	Accordingly, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Prose’s
Recommendation as an order of this Court. ECF No. 61. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
ECF 	No. 	33, 	is 	GRANTED, 	and 	Plaintiff’s 	claims 	are 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court further AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Prose’
Case No. 1:25-cv-00649-CNS-SBP Document 62 filed 02/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, ECF Nos. 26 and 47, be
DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED this 26th day of February 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-00649-CNS-SBP Document 62 filed 02/26/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3