Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-03495-PAB-MEH
09-07-2021
DARUS WILKINS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PALOMINO, in his individual and official capacity, CHRIS CHAVEZ, in his individual and official capacity, KARA KENNEDY, in her individual and official capacity, VIRGINIA FREED, in her individual and official capacity, NITA HUNT, in her individual and official capacity, BRENT PIERCE, in his individual and official capacity, and LUKE HOLLAND, in his individual capacity, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
PHILIP A. BRIMMER Chief United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on August 12, 2021 [Docket No. 83]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 83 at 7; See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on August 12, 2021. No. party has objected to the Recommendation.
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'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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, the Court has concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
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).
1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty [Docket No. 83] is ACCEPTED;
2. Plaintiffs Motion for an Order to Show Cause for A Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 75] is DENIED; and
3. Plaintiffs injunctive relief claims are DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).