Griffith v. Meyer

Full title: DARLENE GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. CARMEN A. MEYER, R.N., et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Nov 29, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03078-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03078-CMA-BNB

11-29-2012

DARLENE GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. CARMEN A. MEYER, R.N., et al., Defendants.

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING NOVEMBER 7, 2012

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. # 16.) On November 7, 2012, Judge Boland issued a Recommendation, advising the Court to deny Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Prospective Injunctive Relief Pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(2) and (b)(1)" (Doc. # 46) and her "Motion for Defendants to Show Cause and Motion for Restraining Order to Defendants to Return the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint" (Doc. # 50). (Doc. # 69.) The Recommendation stated that "the parties have 14 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific, written objections." (Id. at 6 n.3.) It also informed the parties that "failure to serve and file specific, written objections waives de novo review of the recommendation by the district judge." (Id.) No party has filed objections.

"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 finds that Judge Boland's reasoning is sound.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland (Doc. # 69) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation, it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Prospective Injunctive Relief Pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. 3626(a)(2) and (b)(1)" (Doc. # 46) and her "Motion for Defendants to Show Cause and Motion for Restraining Order to Defendants to Return the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint" (Doc. # 50) are DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

____________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge