Burnam et al v. Weld County Sheriffs, The et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Nina Y. Wang
Civil Action No. 23-cv-00151-NYW-NRN
ERIC BURNAM,
ERIN CIENFUEGOS, and
MICHELLE ERICKSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE WELD COUNTY SHERIFFS,
THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES OF WELD COUNTY,
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF WELD COUNTY,
ASHLEY HUGHES,
ANGELA TIMOTHY-FLEECE,
DONOVAN PECORELLA,
TRAVIS DENNING,
PETE JONES,
JARED PATTERSON,
DANIEL CHAPMAN,
DANIEL TRUJILLO, and
LARRY NUEGEBAUER,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter issued on January 2, 2025. [Doc. 73]. Judge
Neureiter recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed With Amended
Complaint Pursuant to Colo. R. Civ. P. 15 and 24 (the “Motion to Amend”), [Doc. 68], be
denied, see [Doc. 73 at 2].1
1 On March 11, 2024, this Court granted two Motions to Dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs’
Complaint without prejudice. 	See [Doc. 56 at 31]. 	However, the Court also granted
Plaintiffs leave to file a motion to amend their complaint. [Id.].
Case No. 1:23-cv-00151-NYW-NRN Document 78 filed 02/19/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days after its service on the Parties. 	[Id. at 11–12]; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). 	The Recommendation was served on January 2, 2024. 	See [Doc. 73].
After Plaintiffs requested and were granted an extension of time to object to the
Recommendation, the Court set the objection deadline to January 30, 2025, stating that
no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See [Doc.
76]. Despite the extension, no Party has objected to the Recommendation, and the time
to do so has elapsed.
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 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge N.
Reid Neureiter [Doc. 73] is ADOPTED;
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. 1:23-cv-00151-NYW-NRN Document 78 filed 02/19/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
(2) 	Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed With Amended Complaint Pursuant
to Colo. R. Civ. P. 15 and 24 [Doc. 68] is DENIED;
(3) 	Because the Court has dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and has now denied
leave to amend, there are no operative claims in this case. Accordingly, the
Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate this case;
(4) 	Defendants are awarded their costs under Rule 54 and D.C.COLO.LCivR
54.1;3 and
(5) 	The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to:
Eric Burnam
1287 South 8th Avenue
Apartment B-110
Brighton, CO 80601
Erin Cienfuegos
1287 South 8th Avenue
Apartment B-110
Brighton, CO 80601
Michelle Erickson
5568 Longs Peak Street
Brighton, CO 80601
DATED: February 19, 2025 BY THE COURT:
_________________________
Nina Y. Wang
United States District Judge
3 Though costs should generally “be allowed to the prevailing party,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(d)(1), the district court may, in its discretion, decline to award costs where a “valid
reason” exists for the decision, see, e.g., In re Williams Sec. Litig.-WCG Subclass, 558
F.3d 1144, 1147 (10th Cir. 2009). 	“[T]he denial of costs is ‘in the nature of a severe
penalty,’ and ‘there must be some apparent reason to penalize the prevailing party if costs
are to be denied.’” 	Rodriguez v. Whiting Farms, Inc., 360 F.3d 1180, 1190 (10th Cir.
2004) (quoting Klein v. Grynberg, 44 F.3d 1497, 1507 (10th Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs do not
proceed in this case in forma pauperis, and they paid the filing fee at the outset of this
action; however, they did later file an Application to Proceed in Court Without Prepayment
of Fees or Costs, [Doc. 69], which Judge Neureiter denied as moot, see [Doc. 74]. Even
if Plaintiffs are indigent, the Court respectfully concludes that there is no valid reason to
justify denying costs in this action. 	See Higgins v. Potter, No. 08-cv-02646-JWL, 2011
WL 3667097, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 22, 2011) (observing that nothing in Rule 54 suggests
“that the court should penalize a party simply because a financial disparity exists between
the parties”); Brooks v. Gaenzle, No. 06-cv-01436-CMA-MJA, 2009 WL 4949922, at *5
(D. Colo. Dec. 15, 2009) (“A district court does not abuse its discretion in awarding costs
to the prevailing party simply because the non-prevailing party was indigent.”).
Case No. 1:23-cv-00151-NYW-NRN Document 78 filed 02/19/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3