Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00336-CMA-KMT
11-30-2011
LAURINDA GOODWIN, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MAPES, Defendant.
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING AUGUST 24, 2011,
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. # 17.) On August 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Recommendation (Doc. # 33), advising that Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. # 28) be granted and Plaintiff's "Motion for Protection Order Against Defendant" (Doc. # 10) be denied. The Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff three extensions of time to file objections to the Recommendation. (Docs. # 36, 40, 43.) The final extension of time, which the Magistrate Judge ordered on November 3, 2011, stated that "Plaintiff shall file her objections to the Recommendation no later than November 21, 2011." (Doc. # 43.) Plaintiff has not filed anything since November 3.
"In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate'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) (observing 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"). Having reviewed the Recommendation, the Court discerns no clear error on the face of the record and determines that the Magistrate Judge's reasoning is sound.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (Doc. # 33) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is
1. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's "Motion to Dismiss" (Doc. # 28) is GRANTED as follows:
a. Plaintiff's third claim, for emotional and mental anguish, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; and
b. Plaintiff's first and second claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
The Court also notes that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity on these two claims.
2. Plaintiff's "Motion for Protection Order Against Defendant" (Doc. # 10) is DENIED.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's third claim, for emotional and mental anguish, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but her remaining claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
BY THE COURT:
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge