Olsen v. Utah Department of Corrections

District Court, D. Utah·Decided September 10, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-00087·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

ERIC NORMAN OLSEN,

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND v. DISMISSING CASE

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00087-JNP-CMR Defendants. District Judge Jill N. Parrish

Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero issued a Report and Recommendation that the court dismiss plaintiff Eric Norman Olsen’s action for failure to prosecute the case and failure to abide by the orders of the court. Judge Romero notified Olsen that a failure to file a timely objection to her recommendation could waive any objections to it. No objection was filed within the allotted time. Because no party objected to the Report and Recommendation, any argument that it was in error has been waived. See United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). The court will decline to apply the waiver rule only if “the interests of justice so dictate.” Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and concludes it is not clearly erroneous. Thus, the court finds that the interests of justice do not warrant deviation from the waiver rule and ADOPTS IN FULL the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 8, is ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. The court DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DATED September 10, 2021. BY THE COURT:

- N. PARRISH United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Olsen v. Utah Department of Corrections, (D. Utah 2021).

Olsen v. Utah Department of Corrections (Olsen v. Utah Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dennis Wayne Moore v. United States
950 F.2d 656 (Tenth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. 2121 East 30th Street
73 F.3d 1057 (Tenth Circuit, 1996)