Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-001644-WYD-CBS
11-28-2011
JOSHUA M. JUNEVICUS, Plaintiff, v. DEPT. OF VETERAN'S AFFAIRS, HEALTH ADMINISTRATION CENTER, and ERIC SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Defendants.
Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court in connection with Defendant Eric Shinseki's Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief [ECF No. 33], filed June 17, 2011. Defendant's motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shaffer for a recommendation by Order of Reference dated July 26, 2010 [ECF No. 5] and the Memorandum dated June 17, 2011 [ECF No. 34]. Magistrate Judge Shaffer issued a Recommendation on October 7, 2011 [ECF No. 43]. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), D.C.COLO.LR. 72.1.
Magistrate Judge Shaffer recommends therein that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief be granted. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Shaffer finds that the Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination. Magistrate Judge Shaffer further finds that even if the court were to find that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case, the Defendant has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee's termination and the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate pretext.
Magistrate Judge Shaffer advised the parties that written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of the Recommendation. (Recommendation at 13.) Despite this advisement, no objections were filed to the Recommendation. No objections having been filed, I am vested with discretion to review the Recommendation "under any standard [I] deem[] appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991); see also 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"). Nonetheless, though not required to do so, I review the Recommendation to "satisfy [my]self that there is no clear error on the face of the record." See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes.
Note, 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).
Having reviewed the Recommendation, I am satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record. I find that Magistrate Judge Shaffer's Recommendation is thorough, well-reasoned and sound. I agree with Magistrate Judge Shaffer that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief [ECF No. 33], filed June 17, 2011 should be granted for the reasons stated in both the Recommendation and this Order. Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Shaffer [ECF No. 43], filed October 7, 2011, is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. In accordance therewith, it is
FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Brief [ECF No. 33], filed June 17, 2011 is GRANTED. Judgment shall enter in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's amended claim, which will terminate the case.
BY THE COURT:
WILEY Y. DANIEL,
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE