From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jimenez v. Martz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 21, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00948-PAB-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00948-PAB-CBS

03-21-2012

ANTHONY L. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. SGT. SARA MARTZ, SOLANO, and 3 UNKNOWN DOC AGENTS, 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 Craig B. Shaffer filed on February 23, 2012 [Docket No. 48]. The Recommendation states that objections to the Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days after its service on the parties. See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Recommendation was served on February 23, 2012 and, after plaintiff filed a notification of address change [Docket No. 49], an additional copy was sent to plaintiff's new address on February 27, 2012. 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. 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, I have reviewed the Recommendation to satisfy myself that there is "no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes. Based on this review, I have concluded that the Recommendation is a correct application of the facts and the law. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

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).

1. The Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Docket No. 48] is ACCEPTED.

2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 26] is granted.

3. This case is dismissed with prejudice.

BY THE COURT:

_________________

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Jimenez v. Martz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 21, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00948-PAB-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2012)
Case details for

Jimenez v. Martz

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY L. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff, v. SGT. SARA MARTZ, SOLANO, and 3 UNKNOWN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 21, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00948-PAB-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 21, 2012)