Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00263-PAB-MEH
10-29-2012
JOSEPH GARCIA, Plaintiff, v. P.A. CHAMJOCK, in his individual capacity, and DR. BUGLEWICZ, in his individual capacity, 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 Michael E. Hegarty filed on October 3, 2012 [Docket No. 65]. 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 October 4, 2012. The copy of the Recommendation that was mailed to plaintiff at his last known address was returned as undeliverable [Docket No. 67]. It appears from the Colorado Department of Corrections' inmate locator website that the plaintiff has been released to Community Corrections. Although he is required to do so, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 10.1M, plaintiff has failed to inform the court of his current mailing address. Plaintiff, therefore, bears responsibility for not receiving a copy of the Recommendation. No party has filed an objection.
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. 65] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 49] is GRANTED.
3. This case is dismissed, and the trial preparation conference set for November 15, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. and the jury trial set for November 26, 2012 are VACATED.
BY THE COURT:
______________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge