Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01658-PAB-BNB
11-30-2011
NOUR GRIFFIN EVANS Plaintiff, v. SERGEANT R. DOIZAKI, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY L. EMERSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY D. THOMPSON, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY S. BANCROFT, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY D. KLEINHEKSEL, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY C. WENzEl, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY T. BAHRS, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY B. KNUDSEN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, DEPUTY S. ROLEN, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, and DEPUTY K. ELLEDGE, individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for Arapahoe County, Defendants.
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland filed on November 8, 2011 [Docket No. 75]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendations must be filed within fourteen days after service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on November 8, 2011. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have 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 [Docket No. 75] is ACCEPTED.
2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for plaintiff's failure to make monthly payments of twenty percent of his preceding month's income until his filing fee was paid in full, or show cause each month that he has no assets with which to make the monthly payment.
BY THE COURT:
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge