Dixon v. Ruiz

Full title: WALTER R. DIXON Plaintiff, v. RUIZ, and, PEGGY HEIL Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 30, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00562-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo. Jan. 30, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00562-RBJ-BNB

01-30-2012

WALTER R. DIXON Plaintiff, v. RUIZ, and, PEGGY HEIL Defendants.

R. Brooke Jackson

Honorable R. Brooke Jackson

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 8, 2011 RECOMMENDATIONS

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the November 8, 2011 Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland that defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#23) be granted, and that plaintiff's complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation (#32). Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Boland's Recommendation were filed by either party. "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").

The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analyses and recommendations are correct, and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of The United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, Doc. # 32, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. It is further ORDERED that defendant Motion to Dismiss, Doc. #23 be GRANTED and all claims asserted by plaintiff against said defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

BY THE COURT:

____________

R. Brooke Jackson

United States District Judge