Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-00103-WJM-CBS
09-16-2011
DAVID KEY, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT McLAUGHLIN, individually and officially, JOE WILLIAMS, individually and officially, PAULA J. FRANTZ, individually and officially, CATHIE HOLST, individually and officially, SANDY VALENTINE, individually and officially, and CAROL McCORMACK, individually and officially, Defendants.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER AFFIRMING AUGUST 3, 2011 RECOMMENDATION
AND GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the Court on the August 3, 2011 Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (ECF No. 65.) 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. 65 at 25-26.) Despite this advisement, no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation were 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 concludes that the Magistrate Judge's thorough and comprehensive analyses and recommendations are correct and that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note. Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 65), filed August 3, 2011, is ACCEPTED. For the reasons cited therein, the Court further ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;
2. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. Plaintiff's conspiracy claim and claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all Defendants;
4. Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Frantz and Holst is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
5. Defendants Frantz and Holst are DISMISSED as parties; and
6. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment Claim against Defendants McLaughlin, Williams, Valentine, and McCormack.
BY THE COURT:
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge