From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coit v. Zavaras

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 4, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00609-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00609-WYD-MJW

02-04-2013

JILL COIT, Plaintiff, v. ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, et. al, Defendants.


Senior Judge Wiley Y. Daniel


ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Recommendation"), filed January 10, 2013. (ECF No. 153, Recommendation). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Watanabe recommends that the claims against defendants Michael Dussart, Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2, and Jane/John Doe #3 should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. (Recommendation at 2). The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

Magistrate Judge Watanabe advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 2-3). Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.

Note, 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).

Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Watanabe's Recommendation is thorough, well reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Watanabe that that the claims against defendants Michael Dussart, Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2, and Jane/John Doe #3 should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boland (ECF No. 153) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that that the claims against defendants Michael Dussart, Jane/John Doe #1, Jane/John Doe #2, and Jane/John Doe #3 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1. The Clerk of the Court shall amend the case caption to reflect the dismissal of these defendants.

BY THE COURT:

________

Wiley Y. Daniel

United States Senior District Judge


Summaries of

Coit v. Zavaras

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Feb 4, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00609-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2013)
Case details for

Coit v. Zavaras

Case Details

Full title:JILL COIT, Plaintiff, v. ARISTEDES ZAVARAS, Director of the Colorado…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Feb 4, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-00609-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Feb. 4, 2013)