From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ervin v. Gregory

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jul 28, 2015
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02602-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jul. 28, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02602-PAB-MEH

07-28-2015

BRUCE ERVIN, Plaintiff, v. LISA GREGORY, Defendant.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty (the "Recommendation") filed on July 1, 2015 [Docket No. 154]. The magistrate judge recommends that the Court grant the Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 117] filed by defendant Lisa Gregory and deny as moot Ms. Gregory's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 116]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on July 1, 2015. 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) ("[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"). 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 that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 154] is ACCEPTED. It is further

ORDERED that defendant Lisa Gregory's Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 117] is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that defendant Lisa Gregory's Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 116] is DENIED as moot. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Lisa Gregory is dismissed with prejudice. It is further

ORDERED that, within 14 days after the entry of judgment, defendants may have their costs by filing a bill of costs with the Clerk of the Court. It is further

ORDERED that this case is dismissed in its entirety.

DATED July 28, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ervin v. Gregory

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jul 28, 2015
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02602-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jul. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Ervin v. Gregory

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE ERVIN, Plaintiff, v. LISA GREGORY, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jul 28, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-02602-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jul. 28, 2015)