Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-02162-PAB-SKC
03-10-2022
JASON BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. TERESA REYNOLDS, DONALD CANFIELD, JEFF LONG, DEAN WILLIAMS, JOHN DOE, Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and COLORADO SUPREME COURT, Defendants.
ORDER
PHILIP A. BRIMMER CHIEF JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation re: Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 101] filed on February 17, 2022. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. Docket No. 101 at 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 17, 2022. 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 1 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
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).
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation re: Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 101] is ACCEPTED;
2. The Colorado Supreme Court's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 67] is GRANTED; and
3. Plaintiffs fifth claim, against the Colorado Supreme Court, is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2