Opinion
Civil Action 19-cv-01550-CMA-KLM
11-18-2022
HUNTER ADAM MELNICK, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY ACHEN, Case Manager, LORI STALCAR, Mental Health Supervisor, ALLISON V. ROWLAND, Mental Health Therapist, LAURA BORREGO-GIBBS, SOTMP Supervisor, KRISTY STANSELL, SOTMP Therapist, AMY MOELLENBERG, CPO, and MELISSA LAWRENCE, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING SEPTEMBER 20, 2022, RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO, SENIOR JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the September 20, 2022, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 154), wherein Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix recommends that Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 120) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 123) be denied. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The Court affirms and adopts the Recommendation for the following reasons.
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 154 at 6-7.) On October 6, 2022, Plaintiff requested an additional 30 days to file objections. (Doc. # 160.) On October 11, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's request and advised Plaintiff he would have until November 17, 2022, to file objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 161.) Despite this advisement, no objection to Magistrate Judge Mix's Recommendation has been filed.
“[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate.” Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that “[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings”)).
After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mix, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• The September 20, 2022, Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 154) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court; and
• Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 120) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 123) are DENIED.