Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jonathan Valentine v. United States

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00649

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

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.

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’
Recommendation that Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motions, ECF Nos. 26 and 47, be
DENIED AS MOOT.
DATED this 26th day of February 2026.
BY DP URT:
f Hf

Ckefflotte rewgeney
United Sta istrict Jyedge