Key v. McLaughlin

Full title: DAVID SCOTT KEY, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN, JOE WILLIAMS, SANDY…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 12, 2013

Civil Action No. 10-cv-0103-WJM-CBS (D. Colo. Apr. 12, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-0103-WJM-CBS

04-12-2013

DAVID SCOTT KEY, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT MCLAUGHLIN, JOE WILLIAMS, SANDY VALENTINE, and CAROL MCCORMACK, Defendants.

William J. Martínez

Judge William J. Martínez

ORDER ADOPTING MARCH 19, 2013 RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the March 19, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 111) that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 94) be granted. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 111, at 20-21.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation have to date been filed by either party. The Court notes that the Recommendation was issued 24 days ago.

The Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's analysis was thorough and sound, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."); see also Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) ("In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate's report under any standard it deems appropriate.").

In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: (1) The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 111) is ADOPTED in its entirety; (2) Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 94) is GRANTED; and (3) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter Judgment on the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18) in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. Each party shall bear his or her own costs.

____________________________

William J. Martínez

United States District Judge