From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingram v. Clements

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 5, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01653-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01653-CMA-CBS

03-05-2013

MICHAEL RAY INGRAM, Plaintiff, v. FRANK CLEMENTS, Executive Director, Colorado Department of Corrections, and JAMES FALK, Warden, Sterling Correctional Facility, Colorado Department of Corrections, Defendants.


Judge Christine M. Arguello


ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FEBRUARY 5, 2013

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer January 10, 2013 oral Recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion and Brief for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 4) be denied. (Doc. # 39.) A transcript of Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation was finalized on February 11, 2013. (Doc. # 41.)

The Magistrate Judge recommended denying Plaintiff's Motion at a preliminary scheduling conference. The transcript of that conference is located in the docket at Doc. # 41.

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after receiving a transcript of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 41 at 16.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation have been filed by either party. "In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge'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) (stating 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.").

The Court has reviewed all the relevant pleadings concerning Plaintiff's' Motion and Brief for Temporary Restraining Order, including the transcript of Magistrate Judge Shaffer's oral Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Shaffer's recommendation is correct and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shaffer as the findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the oral Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (Doc. # 39) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion and Brief for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. # 4) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

______________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Ingram v. Clements

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 5, 2013
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01653-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2013)
Case details for

Ingram v. Clements

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL RAY INGRAM, Plaintiff, v. FRANK CLEMENTS, Executive Director…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 5, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01653-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2013)