From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Franco v. Sturgeon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 5, 2015
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02851-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2015)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02851-PAB-MEH

01-05-2015

NOE CARRILLO FRANCO, Plaintiff, v. STURGEON, in individual and official capacities, CINDY NOLD, in individual and official capacities, and KERRY BARON, in individual and official capacities, Defendants.


ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty filed on December 9, 2014 [Docket No. 47]. 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 December 9, 2014. 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 as follows:

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 47] is ACCEPTED.

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 36] is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 35] is DENIED as moot.

4. This case is dismissed in its entirety.

DATED January 5, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Franco v. Sturgeon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 5, 2015
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02851-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2015)
Case details for

Franco v. Sturgeon

Case Details

Full title:NOE CARRILLO FRANCO, Plaintiff, v. STURGEON, in individual and official…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 5, 2015

Citations

Civil Action No. 13-cv-02851-PAB-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 5, 2015)